Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...

[Reader]

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.

The 2002 appeal document refers to Malcolm Bonnett's timings, but doesn't state that they came directly from his telephone communications log. If that log was available, how come its use of the word "daughter" wasn't considered? The same argument applies to the original trial.

The first time fine detail from Bonnett's log was discussed online seems to be in February 2009 in this post on the SFJ website. I'm currently waiting for mike tesko to reply to me there.

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

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.

Valid point well made!

[Kaldin]

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.

The 2002 appeal document refers to Malcolm Bonnett's timings, but doesn't state that they came directly from his telephone communications log. If that log was available, how come its use of the word "daughter" wasn't considered? The same argument applies to the original trial.

The first time fine detail from Bonnett's log was discussed online seems to be in February 2009 in this post on the SFJ website. I'm currently waiting for mike tesko to reply to me there.

Perhaps the defence saw what others have seen - that the two logs probably refer to the same phone call, and no amount of spin will change that.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

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.

Valid point well made!

Since when as a lack of any tangible evidence, whilst there's an abundance of wild speculation every stopped us?

Hang him I say!... we can always grant him a 'virtual pardon' should we change our minds in the morning (in the light of a diagram of 'how it was done' on the back of a fag packet).

Oh and JB used to smoke... nuff said!!!


*dons black cap*

[mb1]

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.

Valid point well made!

Since when as a lack of any tangible evidence, whilst there's an abundance of wild speculation every stopped us?

Hang him I say!... we can always grant him a 'virtual pardon' should we change our minds in the morning (in the light of a diagram of 'how it was done' on the back of a fag packet).

Oh and JB used to smoke... nuff said!!!


*dons black cap*

Just pointing out that we should be circumspect in regard to any posted document.

Whatever the truth, or outcome, the twins, June and Nevill won't be receiving any kind of pardon...
 

[TheBrilliantMistake]

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.

Valid point well made!

Since when as a lack of any tangible evidence, whilst there's an abundance of wild speculation every stopped us?

Hang him I say!... we can always grant him a 'virtual pardon' should we change our minds in the morning (in the light of a diagram of 'how it was done' on the back of a fag packet).

Oh and JB used to smoke... nuff said!!!


*dons black cap*

Just pointing out that we should be circumspect in regard to any posted document.

Whatever the truth, or outcome, the twins, June and Nevill won't be receiving any kind of pardon...

Indeed.

[mike tesko]

What you have got, is a piece of A4 paper, a document, which some are trying to argue that at the time of Bambers trial, October 1986, had the details of the log (4:02am) on one side, and details of a phone log timed at 3:26am, on the reverse side?

Well, I can assure everyone that that is not what took place...

There was / is only two sides to the document we are debating, yet there are three pages of information / detail which need to be taken into consideration:-

(1) phone log detailing Ralph Bambers call to the police, timed at 3:26am
(2) phone log detailing Jeremy Bambers call to the police, timed at 3:36am, and
(3) log for scene timed at 4:02am

We should not overlook the fact that the reason why these documents have now fallen to be considered, is because of the discovery of document (1) details amongst the file, in about 2009, which suggested that (1) was copied onto the reverse of (3), and that (1) had the Chelmsford Crown court stamp upon it, as if to confirm and verify that this phone log (3:26am) had been disclosed at the time of the trial - but it was not...

Some sort of trickery has been adopted here, to give the impression that (1) was disclosed, when it had not been...

Let me post the documents in question which are at the center of this debate:-

[mike tesko]

Now, if PC West was explaining why he got the wrong time recorded on his log, at 3:36am, because the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, the only log that was disclosed in relation to his explanation during the trial, was the one (2) he wrote up and produced, bearing the time of 3:36am...

So, what I am saying is, that document (1) was never disclosed, at the time of the trial (October 1986) or even referred to, either by the prosecution, or defense counsel, or any other witness who attended court to testify about the timing of the calls to the police...

Document (1) above, was not disclosed by anyone, at all during the trial...

Document (2) above, was...

Now, so that there can be no misunderstanding about what I have been saying, any document produced during the trial could only have had two sides, which for the purpose of this little explanation, I shall refer to as side (a) and side (b)...

Now, bearing in mind what some have been trying to suggest, it needs to be explained to me, in some sort of simple English language, how three different documents could end up being part of one document that only has two sides, side (a) and side (b)?

Why would PC West be introducing a phone log timed at 3:26am, that mentions Ralph Bambers daughter having possession of one of his guns, to back up his claim that the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast? If he had introduced such a document, its contents would have opened up a can of worms during the trial and alerted everyone to the possibility that Ralph must have made an earlier call (3:26am) to the police, before Jeremy did at 3:36am? It would have created further problems to the prosecutions case, because it would have been open, as it is now, to the suggestion that the 3:26am call must have been made ten minutes sooner at 3:16am, and therefore, and if, the other phone log, timed at 3:36am, had been disclosed during the trial (which I accept it was), both logs could not, and did not refer or relate to the same call made to the police by Jeremy Bamber...

The key to unraveling this dispute, lays with the explanation about the clock in the control room, being ten minutes fast - such a clock was a communal one, that was shared by all those who worked in the control room incident room, switch board, and reception area at the police station...

Because the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, it must mean and does mean, in my opinion, that 3:26am, meant 3:16am, and that 3:36am, meant 3:26am...

Once you accept this, it does not entitle anyone to simply substitute the contents of the phone log timed at 3:26am, for the call that Bamber made to the police at 3:26am, because that call (Ralph Bambers call at 3:26am) was actually made ten minutes earlier at 3:16am, and therefore cannot be reconciled with the call that Jeremy made to the police about ten minutes afterwards...

What you must not do, is substitute the contents of the 3:26am call for the call made by Jeremy at 3:26am, because the earlier call made by Ralph Bamber, was actually made ten minutes sooner at 3:16am...

Finally, it needs to be explained to me, how three different documents, could be printed, or written on one piece of paper, upon a document which only has two sides?

The phone log (3:36am) giving details of Jeremy's call was the one disclosed at the time of the trial - not the other one timed at 3:26am, in keeping with my (this) explanation...

[mike tesko]

The fact that the clock in the control room (which was a communal one) would also effect the timings associated with, or allocated to the dispatch of police vehicles to the scene, and the time of their alleged arrivals there -  so, lets look at those details more closely:-

CA7 - was deployed to the scene at 03:35 and arrived at the scene at 03:48, which because of the ten minute difference involving the control room clock, means that CA7 was deployed to the scene at 03:25am, and arrived there at 03:38am. Similarly, CA6 was deployed to the scene at 03:36am, and arrived at the scene at 04:23am, which translates into 03:26am deployed to scene, and 04:13am arrival there...

Another interesting feature, is the fact that it states that at 03:56am, GPO have checked phone line to farmhouse and confirm phone left off hook - which again, attracts the ten minute adjustment which needs to be made because of the fact that the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, and so this check must have been made by the GPO at 03:46...

Now, I am saying that the timing of when the GPO checked the telephone line at whf (03:46am) was significant because this coincided with the sighting of the figure inside whf by PS Bews, PC Myall and Jeremy Bamber - where PC Myall reported that he had seen an unidentified male at whf, who became a suspect that EP were interested in trying to identify...

You can then see why there was also some confusion regarding the timing of the call by Jeremy to JM - 3:30am or 3:15am, because of an additional complication involving the suggestion that the clock at the digs where JM was living and staying, was itself about 15 minutes fast?

Understanding the complications of the clocks in the control room, and at the living accommodation, where JM was staying, can be unraveled, and thus permit a clearer insight into what took place, by whom and when?

in my opinion...

[chelmsey]

Now I know this is really irrelevant, but in the log,an officer refers to 2 dogs barking.Jeremy stated that the dogs (as in plural) were usually quiet.But only one dog was said to have been brought out of the house.What happened regarding the other one?

[mike tesko]

Now I know this is really irrelevant, but in the log,an officer refers to 2 dogs barking.Jeremy stated that the dogs (as in plural) were usually quiet.But only one dog was said to have been brought out of the house.What happened regarding the other one?

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

Other dog was kept in an outbuilding of the farm (at night)...

[mb1]

So if they didn't have both logs, why was reference made to the 3.26/3.36 time discrepancy?

[Kaldin]

Once again, I haven't got the faintest idea what Mike is on about now, but good luck to those who have. 

[chelmsey]

Now I know this is really irrelevant, but in the log,an officer refers to 2 dogs barking.Jeremy stated that the dogs (as in plural) were usually quiet.But only one dog was said to have been brought out of the house.What happened regarding the other one?

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

Other dog was kept in an outbuilding of the farm (at night)...

Thanks Mike.Im sure Im gonna sleep better now that I know   :D

[mb1]

Kaldin, we're relying on you re calls!
Am I imagining that the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy has been legally addressed? In which case, what's new?

Mike.
Can I ask again - what was stopping JB receiving the itemised billing for Aug 85? Under the terms of the will, he was the legal tenant. Plus the executor had a duty to discharge the estate in the interests of the benefactor/s - so in any totting up of monies in and out JB should have had sight of the itemised bill.

Once the police inferred 'alleged' phone call, proving it became an essential part of the defence. Billing was an obvious. I'm astonished if you're telling me that they couldn't get this directly or indirectly. Absolutely astonished.