Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...

[mike tesko]

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

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

how did the three documents (posted) end up on two sides of a document during the trial?

You know very well, what I am on about...

The 3:26am log and its contents (namely the details of Ralphs call to the police ) was not disclosed, but the later one made by Jeremy timed at 3:36am, was). Stop trying to substitute one for the other...

If the 3:26am phone log details had been disclosed, it would have opened up a can of worms, that would have been counter productive to the prosecutions case, and what is more, counsel for the prosecution has confirmed to Jeremy's solicitors, that they did not have sight of that document during the trial - so, where does that leave your arguments?

You are making the mistake of trying to substitute the details of Ralph's 3:26am (3:16am) call for Jeremy's later call, timed at 3:36am (3:26am), as though they were / are one and the same...

What I am saying is that you cannot do that, because the call timed at 3:26am, needed to be displaced itself by ten minutes to the actual time of 3:16am, when that call was made to the police by Ralph Bamber...

[mb1]

Let me take this one step at a time.

Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.

Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.

Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a seperate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?

So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?

So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.

[mike tesko]

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.

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

You are asking me about something that took place in 1985, at a time when I did not know Jeremy, or anything at all about his case. I only met Jeremy in 1989 for the first time, and it was only after this that I started to take an interest in his case. I cannot give answers to something I had no privy to, or did not know about. But what I can say, is that the itemized phone billing notes from 1984 to July 1985, do exist and by implication there must have also existed similar billing notes for the relevant periods August and September 1985? The phone usage was part of the accounts for the business, N & J Bamber, Ltd, which formed part of Ralph Bambers tax return to the inland revenue. I can see how the itemized billing notes were also part of his parents estate, and it should have been possible for Jeremy or his solicitors, to obtain these and make reference to them at the time of his trial. The fact that they may not have done, or that they did not do, is beyond my control, but they may have had reason for not wanting to, or needing to pursue those matters, because as far as Jeremy was concerned, he did receive the call from RB, and EP must have accepted at some stage that a call had been made from whf to JB's cottage...

In hindsight, there appears to have been a lot on things which should have been done, but which were not subsequently done on Bambers behalf by those representing his interests...

[mike tesko]

Let me take this one step at a time.

Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.

Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.

Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a seperate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?

So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?

So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.

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

Its not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?

seems like a forgery to me...

Document (2) was present at trial, note how the reference to PTO is on document (2), not document (1), so what was recorded on the reverse of Document (2) that EP did not want anyone to find out about, or see?

[Kaldin]

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.

I've given my opinion before re the phone logs of PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, so I don't have anything to add to that.

As for this kind of post ...

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?

I have no idea what that means.

Maybe it's just me, maybe everyone else on here knows exactly what Mike is talking about. 

[mike tesko]

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.

I've given my opinion before re the phone logs of PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, so I don't have anything to add to that.

As for this kind of post ...

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?

I have no idea what that means.

Maybe it's just me, maybe everyone else on here knows exactly what Mike is talking about. 

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

How did the two different phone logs, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am, get onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log, if there was only two sides to the document?

Lets put it another way - why does it say, PTO on document (2) that was written up by PC West, yet the log from the scene timed at 4:02am, was written up by Malcolm Bonnet?  PTO usually means "Please turn over", to read continuation of message or related details, so where are these? Do you think it could mean the reference to the log from the scene details timed at 4:02am?  If so, what was Malcolm Bonnets 4:02am log from the scene, doing on the reverse of PC Wests, phone log, timed at 3:36am?

Basically what I am saying is that the contents of the phone log (3:26am) was not disclosed during ther trial, and the is no evidence to show that it was...

[Kaldin]

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.

I've given my opinion before re the phone logs of PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, so I don't have anything to add to that.

As for this kind of post ...

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?

I have no idea what that means.

Maybe it's just me, maybe everyone else on here knows exactly what Mike is talking about. 

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

How did the two different phone logs, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am, get onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log, if there was only two sides to the document?

Lets put it another way - why does it say, PTO on document (2) that was written up by PC West, yet the log from the scene timed at 4:02am, was written up by Malcolm Bonnet?  PTO usually means "Please turn over", to read continuation of message or related details, so where are these? Do you think it could mean the reference to the log from the scene details timed at 4:02am?  If so, what was Malcolm Bonnets 4:02am log from the scene, doing on the reverse of PC Wests, phone log, timed at 3:36am?

Basically what I am saying is that the contents of the phone log (3:26am) was not disclosed during ther trial, and the is no evidence to show that it was...

First of all, the two phone logs are not on the reverse of the 4.02 log as far as I can tell.

It's possible that the 4.02 log might have been written on the reverse of MB's log but I'm just speculating because the pages are numbered "1" and "2". It's Malcolm Bonnet's writing on both documents in my opinion.

PC West's document is nothing to do with it - it does say PTO on it but if that means please turn over, then you need to ask the police for the other side of it.

[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.

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

You are asking me about something that took place in 1985, at a time when I did not know Jeremy, or anything at all about his case. I only met Jeremy in 1989 for the first time, and it was only after this that I started to take an interest in his case. I cannot give answers to something I had no privy to, or did not know about. But what I can say, is that the itemized phone billing notes from 1984 to July 1985, do exist and by implication there must have also existed similar billing notes for the relevant periods August and September 1985? The phone usage was part of the accounts for the business, N & J Bamber, Ltd, which formed part of Ralph Bambers tax return to the inland revenue. I can see how the itemized billing notes were also part of his parents estate, and it should have been possible for Jeremy or his solicitors, to obtain these and make reference to them at the time of his trial. The fact that they may not have done, or that they did not do, is beyond my control, but they may have had reason for not wanting to, or needing to pursue those matters, because as far as Jeremy was concerned, he did receive the call from RB, and EP must have accepted at some stage that a call had been made from whf to JB's cottage...

In hindsight, there appears to have been a lot on things which should have been done, but which were not subsequently done on Bambers behalf by those representing his interests...

I appreciate that you simply don't know, and I'm taking on trust that itemised bills do exist. It would appear from Appeal documents that there was only one line to WHF, so I'm also accepting that this was a 'business line'.

But facing trial for 5 murders - probable life imprisonment - is not the time to be saying 'well I know I received a call, so that's all that matters'. No worthwhile defence would take that line.
The case is outlined from available evidence - agreed facts, disclosure etc.
But the details are gathered from actively finding evidence - close scrutiny of what's available, seeking new sources etc.

The defence (rightly or wrongly...) was laid out as JB v SC.
Therefore, the defence began with the phone call from Nevill, so that's the first evidence target.
JB had access to that billing through multiple sources:
     Ask BT - He was the legal tenant  of WHF, the phones his possessions.
     Ask BT - He was a director of N & J Bamber Ltd - the biller payer
     Ask the accountant/book-keeper - He had to submit the EoY accounts to I.R. (as was) which would
           have included the phone line as an allowable expense.
     Ask the Executor - He was the main benefactor to the wound-up estate and entitled to view all
           statements and monetary transactions until such time as he was found guilty, unless the
           Executor had sought a court exemption.
     Ask the police - no ground for PII

Solicitor and silks missing this? If it wasn't done, I'm truly gobsmacked.
I could then fill in the gap with speculation...
Do you understand where I'm coming from Mike?

[Kaldin]

Has Mike posted any evidence that there were any itemised bills yet?

[mike tesko]

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.

I've given my opinion before re the phone logs of PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, so I don't have anything to add to that.

As for this kind of post ...

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?

I have no idea what that means.

Maybe it's just me, maybe everyone else on here knows exactly what Mike is talking about. 

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

How did the two different phone logs, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am, get onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log, if there was only two sides to the document?

Lets put it another way - why does it say, PTO on document (2) that was written up by PC West, yet the log from the scene timed at 4:02am, was written up by Malcolm Bonnet?  PTO usually means "Please turn over", to read continuation of message or related details, so where are these? Do you think it could mean the reference to the log from the scene details timed at 4:02am?  If so, what was Malcolm Bonnets 4:02am log from the scene, doing on the reverse of PC Wests, phone log, timed at 3:36am?

Basically what I am saying is that the contents of the phone log (3:26am) was not disclosed during ther trial, and the is no evidence to show that it was...

First of all, the two phone logs are not on the reverse of the 4.02 log as far as I can tell.

It's possible that the 4.02 log might have been written on the reverse of MB's log but I'm just speculating because the pages are numbered "1" and "2". It's Malcolm Bonnet's writing on both documents in my opinion.

PC West's document is nothing to do with it - it does say PTO on it but if that means please turn over, then you need to ask the police for the other side of it.

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

I have the full court transcript and I can assure you that PC West's phone log was introduced (the one timed at 3:36am), which is what he based his explanation on regarding the clock in the control room, being ten minutes fast - much later, the other phone log details timed at 3:26am, appeared on the reverse of the log from the scene timed at 4:02am, one side was a copy, and the other side was an original...

Now if the clock in the control room was a communal clock, that was used by various people, including Malcolm Bonnet, and PC West,  then that call (3:26am) actually took place ten minutes earlier at 3:16am, and could not have been the same call that JB made to the police at 3:36am (amended to 3:26am). What I am trying to say is that you cannot substitute RB's call, for the other call made by JB, because they were still separated by ten minutes in real time?

[mike tesko]

Has Mike posted any evidence that there were any itemised bills yet?

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

I have already said I will consider posting the itemized billing notes once the CCRC makes its final decision

[mb1]

Has Mike posted any evidence that there were any itemised bills yet?

I know the argument re answerphone would have occurred at the trial, but that's a better argument to put before the jury than no evidence of the call whatsoever.
Am I alone in thinking this itemised bill could have been the get out of jail card?
 

 
 

[Kaldin]

I have the full court transcript and I can assure you that PC West's phone log was introduced (the one timed at 3:36am), which is what he based his explanation on regarding the clock in the control room, being ten minutes fast - much later, the other phone log details timed at 3:26am, appeared on the reverse of the log from the scene timed at 4:02am, one side was a copy, and the other side was an original...

Now if the clock in the control room was a communal clock, that was used by various people, including Malcolm Bonnet, and PC West,  then that call (3:26am) actually took place ten minutes earlier at 3:16am, and could not have been the same call that JB made to the police at 3:36am (amended to 3:26am). What I am trying to say is that you cannot substitute RB's call, for the other call made by JB, because they were still separated by ten minutes in real time?

There must have been a reason why PC West was asked about the timing of Jeremy's call, and that reason can only have been because of Malcolm Bonnets 3.26 log - in my opinion.

There's no reason to think that PC West and Malcolm Bonnet were in the same room, let alone looking at the same clock.

As for this business about Malcolm Bonnet's phone log being copied onto the reverse of an original document, I went through all that last night and I don't want to go through it again. I don't believe that happened. The 4.02 log may have been written on the back of Malcolm Bonnet's phone log, but if it was, it was Malcolm Bonnet who did that, so there's no particular mystery there.

As for the "PTO" on PC West's log, well the defence saw the document at the trial according to you, so it was up to them to ask what was on the other side. If they didn't do so, that was their problem ...

[mb1]

Let me take this one step at a time.

Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.

Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.

Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a seperate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?

So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?

So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.

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

Its not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?

seems like a forgery to me...

Document (2) was present at trial, note how the reference to PTO is on document (2), not document (1), so what was recorded on the reverse of Document (2) that EP did not want anyone to find out about, or see?

Mike, the lines follow the lines on the log. You can see the log lines beneath the ink of the stamp, exactly as expected.

I cannot see how anyone even knew there was a ten minute discrepancy unless they had sight of document 1.

Perhaps you are attempting to bring forward JB's call to the police, and everything that follows on the pto/document 3 for some reason yet to be revealed to us.
Or do you agree with the timings on the 4.02 log?

[mike tesko]

Let me take this one step at a time.

Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.

Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.

Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a seperate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?

So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?

So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.

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

Its not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?

seems like a forgery to me...

Document (2) was present at trial, note how the reference to PTO is on document (2), not document (1), so what was recorded on the reverse of Document (2) that EP did not want anyone to find out about, or see?

Mike, the lines follow the lines on the log. You can see the log lines beneath the ink of the stamp, exactly as expected.

I cannot see how anyone even knew there was a ten minute discrepancy unless they had sight of document 1.

Perhaps you are attempting to bring forward JB's call to the police, and everything that follows on the pto/document 3 for some reason yet to be revealed to us.
Or do you agree with the timings on the 4.02 log?

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

Timings on 4:02am, log from scene could also all be out by ten minutes, if the source for the timings was the communal clock in the control room...