Copy of References of Itemized phone bills for WHF (MAL - 860209) Etc...

[mike tesko]

Copy of References to Itemized phone bills for WHF (MAL -  860209) and JB's cottage, at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger (MAL - 88645:-

I am providing these references to show and confirm that itemized billings for the phone at whf and at JB's cottage, did and do exist - although I am not prepared to post the actual billings notes, until after the CCRC makes its decision...

I have decided to make these references available because of doubts that have been raised about their existence, or not...

I can assure everyone that such itemized billings notes, did and do exist and that the court where the trial took place, (Chelmsford CC in October 1986) and the hearing in the court of appeal (2002) were grossly misled...

[mike tesko]

Itemized billing notes do exist for whf and the cottage where JB lived, as confirmed by these references which formed part of COLP's investigation (1991) - as always maintained by me, previously...

[mike tesko]

I have always maintained that EP knew and confirmed that a call was made from whf to JB's cottage that morning...

[mike tesko]

I can assure everyone, that the details contained in Bonnets phone log (3"26am - 3:16am), and the other details in PC Wests phone log (3:36am - 3:26am) are not references to the same call, made by Jeremy to the police, but are in fact, a call from the scene (RB) to EP,  and a separate call from JB's cottage, to EP...

[Kaldin]

I can assure everyone, that the details contained in Bonnets phone log (3"26am - 3:16am), and the other details in PC Wests phone log (3:36am - 3:26am) are not references to the same call, made by Jeremy to the police, but are in fact, a call from the scene (RB) to EP,  and a separate call from JB's cottage, to EP...

If you can prove there was a call from the farm to the police in the early hours of 7th August, that would change everything, but it has to be real proof not just speculation based on belief.

[curiousessex]

One problem - the references published are under a heading 'Registration Disclosure Schedule'

I assume these were the disclosures available at the original trial. If so, the CCRC will presumably determine, as they have with other issues, these items were / would have been available to the defence. If nothing was made of them by the defence at the time of the original trial then this does not mean they can be regarded as new evidence.

Can Mike advise if the 'Registration Disclosure Schedule' refers to the Disclosure Schedule at the original trial?

[Kaldin]

One problem - the references published are under a heading 'Registration Disclosure Schedule'

I assume these were the disclosures available at the original trial. If so, the CCRC will presumably determine, as they have with other issues, these items were / would have been available to the defence. If nothing was made of them by the defence at the time of the original trial then this does not mean they can be regarded as new evidence.

Can Mike advise if the 'Registration Disclosure Schedule' refers to the Disclosure Schedule at the original trial?

Yes, the document appears to be from the investigation of 1991, so it's not clear what it means exacly.

Why was it called Operation Stokenchurch by the way?

[mike tesko]

One problem - the references published are under a heading 'Registration Disclosure Schedule'

I assume these were the disclosures available at the original trial. If so, the CCRC will presumably determine, as they have with other issues, these items were / would have been available to the defence. If nothing was made of them by the defence at the time of the original trial then this does not mean they can be regarded as new evidence.

Can Mike advise if the 'Registration Disclosure Schedule' refers to the Disclosure Schedule at the original trial?

Yes, the document appears to be from the investigation of 1991, so it's not clear what it means exacly.

Why was it called Operation Stokenchurch by the way?

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

These documents were not made available at the time of the original trial, nor at the failed 2002 appeal hearing...

Courts were told there were no itemized billing notes at all - what a pack of lies Ep and the DPP / CPS told the courts on these occasions. I suppose there will always be those who come up with excuses like, oh its just a mistake, or an oversight, nothing sinister in it at all - but these itemized phone bills for whf and JB's cottage show that the courts have been deceived about this matter, and one can see why they did it, because the court was told that the prosecution did not believe that JB received a call at all from his father at whf, when all along they had evidence that such a call had been, and was made...

Despicable tactics adopted by EP, and the DPP / CPS - and the courts, they are very selective with what they rely upon and refer to, its totally unacceptable for any of them to say that there was not a call made from whf that night to JB's cottage, when they had itemized phone records to prove and establish that such a call had been made...

Despicable, cronies, the lot of them...

[Kaldin]

One problem - the references published are under a heading 'Registration Disclosure Schedule'

I assume these were the disclosures available at the original trial. If so, the CCRC will presumably determine, as they have with other issues, these items were / would have been available to the defence. If nothing was made of them by the defence at the time of the original trial then this does not mean they can be regarded as new evidence.

Can Mike advise if the 'Registration Disclosure Schedule' refers to the Disclosure Schedule at the original trial?

Yes, the document appears to be from the investigation of 1991, so it's not clear what it means exacly.

Why was it called Operation Stokenchurch by the way?

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

These documents were not made available at the time of the original trial, nor at the failed 2002 appeal hearing...

Courts were told there were no itemized billing notes at all - what a pack of lies Ep and the DPP / CPS told the courts on these occasions. I suppose there will always be those who come up with excuses like, oh its just a mistake, or an oversight, nothing sinister in it at all - but these itemized phone bills for whf and JB's cottage show that the courts have been deceived about this matter, and one can see why they did it, because the court was told that the prosecution did not believe that JB received a call at all from his father at whf, when all along they had evidence that such a call had been, and was made...

Despicable tactics adopted by EP, and the DPP / CPS - and the courts, they are very selective with what they rely upon and refer to, its totally unacceptable for any of them to say that there was not a call made from whf that night to JB's cottage, when they had itemized phone records to prove and establish that such a call had been made...

Despicable, cronies, the lot of them...

I get the impression that the prosecution certainly implied that there was no call from the farm to Jeremy's house that night. If it can be proved that there was, that might help in an appeal, although that would of course depend on the timing of that call because it could just be claimed that Jeremy called his answer phone himself and then dashed home. An appeal on those grounds might therefore fail yet again regardless of whether the police should have disclosed that call.

If it can be proved that there was a call to the police from the farm, that would be a different matter, but I don't think you can rely on your own interpretation of Malcolm Bonnett's log to pursuade anyone that such a call existed.

[curiousessex]

One problem - the references published are under a heading 'Registration Disclosure Schedule'

I assume these were the disclosures available at the original trial. If so, the CCRC will presumably determine, as they have with other issues, these items were / would have been available to the defence. If nothing was made of them by the defence at the time of the original trial then this does not mean they can be regarded as new evidence.

Can Mike advise if the 'Registration Disclosure Schedule' refers to the Disclosure Schedule at the original trial?

Yes, the document appears to be from the investigation of 1991, so it's not clear what it means exacly.

Why was it called Operation Stokenchurch by the way?

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

These documents were not made available at the time of the original trial, nor at the failed 2002 appeal hearing...

Courts were told there were no itemized billing notes at all - what a pack of lies Ep and the DPP / CPS told the courts on these occasions. I suppose there will always be those who come up with excuses like, oh its just a mistake, or an oversight, nothing sinister in it at all - but these itemized phone bills for whf and JB's cottage show that the courts have been deceived about this matter, and one can see why they did it, because the court was told that the prosecution did not believe that JB received a call at all from his father at whf, when all along they had evidence that such a call had been, and was made...

Despicable tactics adopted by EP, and the DPP / CPS - and the courts, they are very selective with what they rely upon and refer to, its totally unacceptable for any of them to say that there was not a call made from whf that night to JB's cottage, when they had itemized phone records to prove and establish that such a call had been made...

Despicable, cronies, the lot of them...

Mike - Please explain what the titled 'Registration Disclosure Schedule' means?

[simong]

Mike, post the ACTUAL itemised bills that You said you have, otherwise this is more insubstantial nonsense.

[mike tesko]

One problem - the references published are under a heading 'Registration Disclosure Schedule'

I assume these were the disclosures available at the original trial. If so, the CCRC will presumably determine, as they have with other issues, these items were / would have been available to the defence. If nothing was made of them by the defence at the time of the original trial then this does not mean they can be regarded as new evidence.

Can Mike advise if the 'Registration Disclosure Schedule' refers to the Disclosure Schedule at the original trial?

Yes, the document appears to be from the investigation of 1991, so it's not clear what it means exacly.

Why was it called Operation Stokenchurch by the way?

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

These documents were not made available at the time of the original trial, nor at the failed 2002 appeal hearing...

Courts were told there were no itemized billing notes at all - what a pack of lies Ep and the DPP / CPS told the courts on these occasions. I suppose there will always be those who come up with excuses like, oh its just a mistake, or an oversight, nothing sinister in it at all - but these itemized phone bills for whf and JB's cottage show that the courts have been deceived about this matter, and one can see why they did it, because the court was told that the prosecution did not believe that JB received a call at all from his father at whf, when all along they had evidence that such a call had been, and was made...

Despicable tactics adopted by EP, and the DPP / CPS - and the courts, they are very selective with what they rely upon and refer to, its totally unacceptable for any of them to say that there was not a call made from whf that night to JB's cottage, when they had itemized phone records to prove and establish that such a call had been made...

Despicable, cronies, the lot of them...

I get the impression that the prosecution certainly implied that there was no call from the farm to Jeremy's house that night. If it can be proved that there was, that might help in an appeal, although that would of course depend on the timing of that call because it could just be claimed that Jeremy called his answer phone himself and then dashed home. An appeal on those grounds might therefore fail yet again regardless of whether the police should have disclosed that call.

If it can be proved that there was a call to the police from the farm, that would be a different matter, but I don't think you can rely on your own interpretation of Malcolm Bonnett's log to pursuade anyone that such a call existed.

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

I have already given my interpretation of the call made by RB to the police, (3:16am) and the serious problems associated with Bonnets phone log, (3:26am - 3:16am) ) and PC Wests phone log (3:36am - 3:26am), and I have previously mentioned that EP knew and had proof that such a call was made from the scene to JB's cottage, and the reason why they seized JB's answer phone and audio tapes - you will have to go back and read my comments about those matters, earlier...

You see, it makes a difference whether or not a call was made from whf to JB, because at the trial EP / DPP / CPS, maintained that no such call was ever made - yet they had proof that one had...

Now, that is a very serious matter...

[Kaldin]

One problem - the references published are under a heading 'Registration Disclosure Schedule'

I assume these were the disclosures available at the original trial. If so, the CCRC will presumably determine, as they have with other issues, these items were / would have been available to the defence. If nothing was made of them by the defence at the time of the original trial then this does not mean they can be regarded as new evidence.

Can Mike advise if the 'Registration Disclosure Schedule' refers to the Disclosure Schedule at the original trial?

Yes, the document appears to be from the investigation of 1991, so it's not clear what it means exacly.

Why was it called Operation Stokenchurch by the way?

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

These documents were not made available at the time of the original trial, nor at the failed 2002 appeal hearing...

Courts were told there were no itemized billing notes at all - what a pack of lies Ep and the DPP / CPS told the courts on these occasions. I suppose there will always be those who come up with excuses like, oh its just a mistake, or an oversight, nothing sinister in it at all - but these itemized phone bills for whf and JB's cottage show that the courts have been deceived about this matter, and one can see why they did it, because the court was told that the prosecution did not believe that JB received a call at all from his father at whf, when all along they had evidence that such a call had been, and was made...

Despicable tactics adopted by EP, and the DPP / CPS - and the courts, they are very selective with what they rely upon and refer to, its totally unacceptable for any of them to say that there was not a call made from whf that night to JB's cottage, when they had itemized phone records to prove and establish that such a call had been made...

Despicable, cronies, the lot of them...

I get the impression that the prosecution certainly implied that there was no call from the farm to Jeremy's house that night. If it can be proved that there was, that might help in an appeal, although that would of course depend on the timing of that call because it could just be claimed that Jeremy called his answer phone himself and then dashed home. An appeal on those grounds might therefore fail yet again regardless of whether the police should have disclosed that call.

If it can be proved that there was a call to the police from the farm, that would be a different matter, but I don't think you can rely on your own interpretation of Malcolm Bonnett's log to pursuade anyone that such a call existed.

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

I have already given my interpretation of the call made by RB to the police, (3:16am) and the serious problems associated with Bonnets phone log, (3:26am - 3:16am) ) and PC Wests phone log (3:36am - 3:26am), and I have previously mentioned that EP knew and had proof that such a call was made from the scene to JB's cottage, and the reason why they seized JB's answer phone and audio tapes - you will have to go back and read my comments about those matters, earlier...

You see, it makes a difference whether or not a call was made from whf to JB, because at the trial EP / DPP / CPS, maintained that no such call was ever made - yet they had proof that one had...

Now, that is a very serious matter...

Yes, but I have interpreted Malcolm Bonnett's log differently to you based on what I have seen, so I don't think your interpretation is proof any more than you think my interpretation is proof.

I agree that it would be most interesting to discover that there is proof of a call to Jeremy's house, and that it would not show the prosecution in a good light, but that might not be enough to get Jeremy off because, as I said, he could have called his own house from the farm.

[curiousessex]

One problem - the references published are under a heading 'Registration Disclosure Schedule'

I assume these were the disclosures available at the original trial. If so, the CCRC will presumably determine, as they have with other issues, these items were / would have been available to the defence. If nothing was made of them by the defence at the time of the original trial then this does not mean they can be regarded as new evidence.

Can Mike advise if the 'Registration Disclosure Schedule' refers to the Disclosure Schedule at the original trial?

Yes, the document appears to be from the investigation of 1991, so it's not clear what it means exacly.

Why was it called Operation Stokenchurch by the way?

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

These documents were not made available at the time of the original trial, nor at the failed 2002 appeal hearing...

Courts were told there were no itemized billing notes at all - what a pack of lies Ep and the DPP / CPS told the courts on these occasions. I suppose there will always be those who come up with excuses like, oh its just a mistake, or an oversight, nothing sinister in it at all - but these itemized phone bills for whf and JB's cottage show that the courts have been deceived about this matter, and one can see why they did it, because the court was told that the prosecution did not believe that JB received a call at all from his father at whf, when all along they had evidence that such a call had been, and was made...

Despicable tactics adopted by EP, and the DPP / CPS - and the courts, they are very selective with what they rely upon and refer to, its totally unacceptable for any of them to say that there was not a call made from whf that night to JB's cottage, when they had itemized phone records to prove and establish that such a call had been made...

Despicable, cronies, the lot of them...

I get the impression that the prosecution certainly implied that there was no call from the farm to Jeremy's house that night. If it can be proved that there was, that might help in an appeal, although that would of course depend on the timing of that call because it could just be claimed that Jeremy called his answer phone himself and then dashed home. An appeal on those grounds might therefore fail yet again regardless of whether the police should have disclosed that call.

If it can be proved that there was a call to the police from the farm, that would be a different matter, but I don't think you can rely on your own interpretation of Malcolm Bonnett's log to pursuade anyone that such a call existed.

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

I have already given my interpretation of the call made by RB to the police, (3:16am) and the serious problems associated with Bonnets phone log, (3:26am - 3:16am) ) and PC Wests phone log (3:36am - 3:26am), and I have previously mentioned that EP knew and had proof that such a call was made from the scene to JB's cottage, and the reason why they seized JB's answer phone and audio tapes - you will have to go back and read my comments about those matters, earlier...

You see, it makes a difference whether or not a call was made from whf to JB, because at the trial EP / DPP / CPS, maintained that no such call was ever made - yet they had proof that one had...

Now, that is a very serious matter...

So post the itemised bills you say you have. Please remember we can only discuss the items that you appear to be drip feeding having posted a dramatic title at the beginning of a thread.

In my opinion these apparent tactics will lose credibility when weighed against the obvious and unquestioned dedication to the cause.

[simong]

Very simple Mike, Post the itemised bills that you have said you have otherwise this is yet another a great thread title with little actual substance.