Why Would Essex Police Not Mention The Fact That Neville Called The Police?

[nugnug]

So, would you think that if Neville's call log had been available to the defense, things might have been different?

well not necasrly becouse im not sure its a fact nevile call hapend ethere.

but just becouse no policeman and said it has does not mean it dident its very hard to blow the whistle sometimes.

[Caroline]

well not necasrly becouse im not sure its a fact nevile call hapend ethere.

but just becouse no policeman and said it has does not mean it dident its very hard to blow the whistle sometimes.

No, I'm not saying Neville's call happened, I'm talking about the log. Surely if EP wanted to keep Neville's call a secret, they would make sure no one ever saw that log?

[Caroline]

i just gave it as an example of people don't always come forward for years and if they do there often ignored.

another example is the case Birmingham 5 were policeman did come forward but were more or less called liars.

Would you be surprised to learn that the jury most certainly DID see the log from Neville's call?

[nugnug]

i would be how would you know that.

is it in the trial transcripts.

[Caroline]

i would be how would you know that.

Because it was the log which was later claimed to be from Neville that was show to the jury and NOT the one associated with Jeremy. This information is available on the official site but people read into something that they want to see.

Don't take my word for it - take the Campaigns http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/nevill-s-call-to-police

Look for the question;

"Question:  Why was the log referring to Jeremy’s call never shown to the jury?"

[Caroline]

It was the log that seems to be from Neville that was shown to the jury. FACT!

No great conspiracy, the explanation given to account for both logs makes sense when you KNOW which log the jury saw.

[nugnug]

Because it was the log which was later claimed to be from Neville that was show to the jury and NOT the one associated with Jeremy. This information is available on the official site but people read into something that they want to see.

Don't take my word for it - take the Campaigns http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/nevill-s-call-to-police

Look for the question;

"Question:  Why was the log referring to Jeremy’s call never shown to the jury?"

that seems to be saying that neviles call was shown to the jury but presented as Jeremys.

[Caroline]

that seems to be saying that neviles call was shown to the jury but presented as Jeremys.

Because it WAS Jeremy's - Bonnet just wrote it as being received from the victim and not the caller. It makes perfect sense when you know which log the jury saw.

[lookout]

The problem arose when there were two Mr Bambers,as both callers had addressed themselves with this introduction. It doesn't take much for the police to get confused  Then when they realise they've made a blunder,they surreptitiously cover it up ! FACT,from personal experience except it was a bank who'd put money in g/sons account instead of his fathers' as both had the same name. 

The log of the Bambers didn't surface until 2002,when it was realised that the notes were rolled into one.

[Caroline]

The problem arose when there were two Mr Bambers,as both callers had addressed themselves with this introduction. It doesn't take much for the police to get confused  Then when they realise they've made a blunder,they surreptitiously cover it up ! FACT,from personal experience except it was a bank who'd put money in g/sons account instead of his fathers' as both had the same name. 

The log of the Bambers didn't surface until 2002,when it was realised that the notes were rolled into one.

Nothing of the kind, it's quite obvious what happened. When West passed on the info to Bonnet, he just gave him Neville's details as he was the one in trouble. Bonnet simply wrote it as though Neville were the caller. For instance the word 'berserk' is Bonnet's word because he uses it again in the detailing of events and there s no other information in the log that differs from the other, other than it is written as though the info was called in by Neville - but it wasn't.

[lookout]

I quote " The C1 log relating to Jeremys' call ( written by PC West ) was not shown to the jury.It existed in the " material exhibits file " and not the " exhibits list ",meaning that it was not given an exhibit reference at the trial. There are now several copies with various alterations,which are currently being investigated. " unquote.

[lookout]

The jury were never made aware that a separate call was made by Neville.

[lookout]

Audios of both calls have failed to materialise !!

[Caroline]

The jury were never made aware that a separate call was made by Neville.

Because there wasn't a call from Neville, the log that is supposed to have been his call was presented at trial, thsi was an account of Jeremy's call - there was no point in showing the other log because it was from the SAME call.

[Caroline]

Audios of both calls have failed to materialise !!

There was only one call and we don't know if it was recorded or not.