Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...

[Kaldin]

And just to move the goal posts further, there's also a claim that the log of the scene from 4.02 onwards was fake as well!

I wish someone would just say what exactly was seen in court and what wasn't. I also wish that someone would post the alleged genuine documents which includes this business about PC Myall allegedly seeing someone at the window. Without that it's all just hearsay.

[Roch]

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.

Perhaps his inference is that the cops tried to wing it by doing just that. implausable as it may sound. he's alleging trickery. 

[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.

Perhaps his inference is that the cops tried to wing it by doing just that. implausable as it may sound. he's alleging trickery.

Why? Why would they do that? Nobody would do that. They would simply photocopy MB's log and then say there was nothing on the other side of it. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to photocopy it onto the back of another original document. Furthermore, Mike is now saying that the "original" document wasn't an original document at all.

If there is original handwriting on one side of a piece of paper, and a photocopy on the other side, it's more likely that the handwritten bit was written on the back of a photocopy. However, that would mean that Malcolm Bonnet was also implicated because his log of the call and the log of the scene from 4.02 are both in the same handwriting - in my opinion. I don't think that MB is part of this alleged "cover up".

[Kaldin]

Furthermore, it's not clear to me which document Mike alleges that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of. I thought it was the document which I posted earlier - ie, the police log which shows the events at the house from 4.02 onwards, but Mike said it wasn't that one.

[mb1]

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.

Agree that this is what has been said and that it wouldn't make sense.
No-one puts IMPORTANT originals into feeders as there is a danger the p/copier will chew them up!

[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.

Agree that this is what has been said and that it wouldn't make sense.
No-one puts IMPORTANT originals into feeders as there is a danger the p/copier will chew them up!

Thank you! I was beginning to think that nobody else got it. 

[mb1]

Furthermore, it's not clear to me which document Mike alleges that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of. I thought it was the document which I posted earlier - ie, the police log which shows the events at the house from 4.02 onwards, but Mike said it wasn't that one.

Thought so too.
And that is what was posted by MT on a different thread. He gave both sides of the 'submitted document' and you questioned then why someone would photocopy on the reverse of an original document.

Think MT is returning to previous points/arguments for new members.

[Kaldin]

Furthermore, it's not clear to me which document Mike alleges that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of. I thought it was the document which I posted earlier - ie, the police log which shows the events at the house from 4.02 onwards, but Mike said it wasn't that one.

Thought so too.
And that is what was posted by MT on a different thread. He gave both sides of the 'submitted document' and you questioned then why someone would photocopy on the reverse of an original document.

Think MT is returning to previous points/arguments for new members.

All this chopping and changing is doing my head in to be honest. The story changes every day ...

[Roch]

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.

Agree that this is what has been said and that it wouldn't make sense.
No-one puts IMPORTANT originals into feeders as there is a danger the p/copier will chew them up!

Thank you! I was beginning to think that nobody else got it. 

I'm trying to view things in the context of other documents relating to the case which appear to have had certain words / dates scribbled, altered etc.  The two that come to mind are alleged date alteration on one of the silencer related docs and the log were + fermale is scribbled. I dont know what copying technology was available to the police in 1985 but i remember our college photocopier was little more advanced than a mangle-type contraption. I expect they had access to decent spec equipment though.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I good solid argument should be relatively easy to present.
There's a number of us now who aren't clear on what the argument is - which to me indicates deliberate obfuscation!!!

How difficult can it be to explain the case of two documents, original, photocopied, or otherwise... and how a genuine document was modified and became a fake one?

Surely it's not beyond the wit of man to have this clearly explain to us?

Mike, pretend we know NOTHING (not too difficult to pretend, I'm sure)... we're members of the jury and need to buy into this, or your client's going down...

Spell it out as though we are 12 year olds...
i.e.
Bonnet created log A.
Someone else creates log B.
Log A and log B were photocopied into one document (Log C)
Log C was misrepresented as Log A

etc etc


Pictures always help!!!

[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.

Agree that this is what has been said and that it wouldn't make sense.
No-one puts IMPORTANT originals into feeders as there is a danger the p/copier will chew them up!

Thank you! I was beginning to think that nobody else got it. 

I'm trying to view things in the context of other documents relating to the case which appear to have had certain words / dates scribbled, altered etc.  The two that come to mind are alleged date alteration on one of the silencer related docs and the log were + fermale is scribbled. I dont know what copying technology was available to the police in 1985 but i remember our college photocopier was little more advanced than a mangle-type contraption. I expect they had access to decent spec equipment though.

Regardless of whether a photocopier would chew an original document up or not, it simply makes no sense that someone would feed an original document through a photocopier and copy something onto the other side of it. What possible reason could there be for doing that?

Even if I accepted that the police wanted to pretend that a two-sided document only had one side, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do it by photocopying one side of it onto the other side of an original document.

[Reader]

Spell it out as though we are 12 year olds...

Unfortunately, mike tesko is not very good at presentation, and tends to exaggerate supportive evidence as "proof".

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 ....

Pc West noted he received Jeremy's call at 3:36. He didn't mention 03:26 at all, and mike tesko hasn't clarified (a far as I can recall) whose evidence provided the time of 03:26 and why the defence didn't demand to see an original document to confirm that time. Since the communications log used the word "daughter" to refer to Sheila, it's unlikely that it was known by the defence at the trial.

[Kaldin]

I good solid argument should be relatively easy to present.
There's a number of us now who aren't clear on what the argument is - which to me indicates deliberate obfuscation!!!

How difficult can it be to explain the case of two documents, original, photocopied, or otherwise... and how a genuine document was modified and became a fake one?

Surely it's not beyond the wit of man to have this clearly explain to us?

Mike, pretend we know NOTHING (not too difficult to pretend, I'm sure)... we're members of the jury and need to buy into this, or your client's going down...

Spell it out as though we are 12 year olds...
i.e.
Bonnet created log A.
Someone else creates log B.
Log A and log B were photocopied into one document (Log C)
Log C was misrepresented as Log A

etc etc


Pictures always help!!!

I think you're right - I think the obfuscation on here is reaching epic proportions. It's as if there's some kind of weird game going on.

Anyway, I'm glad it's not just me who can't follow all this ...

[Kaldin]

Spell it out as though we are 12 year olds...

Unfortunately, mike tesko is not very good at presentation, and tends to exaggerate supportive evidence as "proof".

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 ....

Pc West noted he received Jeremy's call at 3:36. He didn't mention 03:26 at all, and mike tesko hasn't clarified (a far as I can recall) whose evidence provided the time of 03:26 and why the defence didn't demand to see an original document to confirm that time. Since the communications log used the word "daughter" to refer to Sheila, it's unlikely that it was known by the defence at the trial.

Well there's only one person who referred to a call at 3.26, and that was Malcolm Bonnet. The appeal judges referred to Bonnet's log so I think it's reasonable to assume that they saw it, and that it had been seen at the trial. If Bonnet's log was not seen at the trial, then I would be asking why the defence didn't demand to see it.

PC West recorded the time of the appellant's call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m. and it seems clear that the appellant's call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.htm

Para 26.

[mb1]

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.

Agree that this is what has been said and that it wouldn't make sense.
No-one puts IMPORTANT originals into feeders as there is a danger the p/copier will chew them up!

Thank you! I was beginning to think that nobody else got it. 

I'm trying to view things in the context of other documents relating to the case which appear to have had certain words / dates scribbled, altered etc.  The two that come to mind are alleged date alteration on one of the silencer related docs and the log were + fermale is scribbled. I dont know what copying technology was available to the police in 1985 but i remember our college photocopier was little more advanced than a mangle-type contraption. I expect they had access to decent spec equipment though.

Without the benefit of the original and any copies in front of us, this is nigh-on impossible to debate. 
We could be looking at copies of copies of copies... with who knows whose additions and the dates these were made.