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

[Reader]

1) My point was that SOME Jeremy supporters insist Bonnett's log proves Nevill made a call to Bonnett

I disagree with such a deduction. Bonnett's log obviously isn't proof of anything at all, but it's suggestive of a call from Pc 1990 (i.e., West) as a result of Nevill having called Pc West.

How can one claim the logs are clearcut evidence of anything when the logs have to be altered in order for them to suggest Nevill made a call and Jeremy supporters who believe such can't even agree over whether if altered they would establish a call from Nevill to West or Bonnett?

Any log is the result of a process of successive alteration. Giving Sheila's age as 26 is sufficient to suggest that information came from Nevill, as Pc West logged Sheila's age, as given by Jeremy, as 27.

the claim it is clear cut evidence even more laughable.

In your opinion, but I didn't make such a claim anyway.

How do the logs suggest that Jeremy and Nevill both phoned West?

They give Sheila's age differently, as has been pointed out to you several times.

While the claim Nevill phoned police is totally unsupported and incredulous,  the claim Nevill called West is even more implausible than the claim he phoned Bonnett.  You support the more ridiculous allegation.

The words "incredulous" and "ridiculous" don't mean the same thing. Bonnett's log gives Sheila's age differently, which is sufficient to suggest a different source for that information.

Why would Nevill have bothered to phone Jeremy asking him to come help disarm his siter if Nevill planned to call police 2 seconds after he hung up the phone with Jeremy?  Why would he look up the phone number to Witham instead of calling 999?  How would he be able to look up the number to Witham and dial in 2 seconds so that Jeremy would get a busy signal?

I haven't suggested any of those things occurred.

If West had spoken to Nevill before Jeremy he would have told such to Jeremy when Jeremy called.

Not necessarily. Logging all calls makes sense.

. . . doesn't fit Jeremy's story about the phone immediately being busy and there is no documentary support for at all.

A telephone is "busy" if off-hook, whether or not it's in use to make a call.

He also was heavily criticized afterwards as being totally unprepared to testify and not having refreshed his memory with respect to the case

I know, but he was quite clear that he did remember the durations he mentioned. There's nothing unbelievable about "1 minute" and "3 minutes". There was even an attempt to query those on the basis that Pc West trended to speak slowly (a common trait in Essex), but Pc West stuck to his guns.

Clearly he told Bonnett everything because Bonnett says he did and wrote such down.

That doesn't make sense, as Bonnett couldn't have known at the time whether he'd been told everything. Anyway, Bonnett didn't record the age of 27 yrs for Sheila that Jeremy gave PC West.

Jeremy says he waited on hold longer than West said and in this one instance his claims are more credible

In your opinion, but Jeremy didn't estimate the total duration of his call. He simply recalled being on hold for quite some time and gave an estimate of that time.

Your allegation is that West told Bonnett about a call received from Nevill and that subsequently Bonnett altered it

That's easy to assert, but it makes sense to many people, given that Bonnett's log starts without mentioning Jeremy and gives Sheila's age as 26, whereas Jeremy told Pc West she was 27.

Why would Nevill know Witham police station's number?

He might have known. Various reasons are possible. Perhaps he simply had a good memory.

Why would Nevill call Jeremy at all to ask him to come help if he planned to call police let alone call Jeremy before the police?

Nobody knows whether he planned as you suggest. He may simply have changed his mind.

If Nevill had called already and told West everything then West would have EVERY reason to tell Jeremy he already received the call directly from Nevill so would not need to hear what Nevill told Jeremy.

It makes sense to log every call, as it isn't known in advance whether important new information will be given.

[Jan]

very patient and well written post reader.

[scipio_usmc]

Reader, Your games are just betraying your bias and desperation.  You keep hiding from logic and evidence that was squarely thrown in your face.  You refused to repsond to and quote the phost that demolished your claims.  You did so because you can't and yet want to maintain your charade. 

I disagree with such a deduction. Bonnett's log obviously isn't proof of anything at all, but it's suggestive of a call from Pc 1990 (i.e., West) as a result of Nevill having called Pc West.

Suggestive of a call from Nevill how?  You relied on two claims to suggest such and I exposed those claim as totally bogus.  I did such a good job of demolishing yuor claims that your refused to quote my posts and offer no response.  So you are pretending I didn't post and continuing with a line of reasoning you know has no basis in fact.  You made the false claim that Bonnet's log fails to attribute the account to Jeremy.  I proved your claim untrue by providing a snippet of the page where it clearly states message passed to West by Mr Bamber's son.  Right there is a crash and burn moment.  You didn't respond or offer any rebuttal you just ignored it and charge ahead with a position that you know was refuted.

The only other basis you offered for Bonnett's log to be indicative of a call from Nevill is the fact that the age listed for Sheila on Bonnett's log is different from the age on West's log.  I proved the fallacy of your claim that it suggests Nevill called and gave a different age. So again you chose not to respond to my argument, to just ignore it and charge ahead with your nonsensical claim.  I didn't just call it a nonsensical claim I proved it to be a nonsensical claim.

Once you admitted that you do not believe Nevill called Bonnett directly you demolished any ability at all to claim the age difference  suggests a call from a second person.  These are your own words, "I'm not suggesting that Nevill called Bonnett, but that Nevill, possibly after getting no reply from Witham, telephoned Pc West. As Nevill didn't dial 999, the situation hadn't yet become a full-scale emergency from his point of view."

So let's make clear what you are alleging.  You are alleging that West wrote down Sheila's age as 26 and ye told Bonnett she was 27 because Bonnett wrote 27.  You claim this suggests that West received another call prior to Jeremy's call indicating she was 27 because Nevill would know her real age.  I agree that Nevill would know her real age and her real age was 28.  All that the age discrepancy suggests is that either:

1) West provided a different age to Bonnett than West wrote down on his log

or

2) Bonnett wrote down a different age than West provided to him

Neither of these circumstances suggests a call from Nevill.  Your argument that the age difference suggests Nevill called is downright stupid.

Far from responding in some substantive way to rebut my position you just ignored it and maintained your same silly position.  That demonstrates you are not acting out of anything other than bias and have no valid basis at all for your claims.

You chose not to quote my post like you had been doing in practice throughout this thread and didn't quote it because you had no rebuttal instead you just did the broken record routine:

Any log is the result of a process of successive alteration. Giving Sheila's age as 26 is sufficient to suggest that information came from Nevill, as Pc West logged Sheila's age, as given by Jeremy, as 27.
In your opinion, but I didn't make such a claim anyway.
They give Sheila's age differently, as has been pointed out to you several times.
The words "incredulous" and "ridiculous" don't mean the same thing. Bonnett's log gives Sheila's age differently, which is sufficient to suggest a different source for that information.

How does the age difference suggest a different source?  What I postied to you in the post you are responding to proves you wrong.  You admit that West fed the age in question to Bonnett.  I posted what that means and you know you are wrong so refused to quote my response and to pretend it was never made.  Here it is again:

All that the age discrepancy suggests is that either:

1) West provided a different age to Bonnett than West wrote down on his log

or

2) Bonnett wrote down a different age than West provided to him

Neither of these circumstances suggests a call from Nevill.  Your argument that the age difference suggests Nevill called is downright stupid.

Each time you ignore this, hide from it and try to pretend this argument doesn't exist so you don't have to rebut it, that just makes plain you understand your position is absurd and unsupportable and that you don't care you will stick with your absurd position anyway.  If your position were supportable you would take the opposing argument head on and rebut it successfully.  But you can't.  It is as baseless as your claim that the log didn't attribute the information as coming from Jeremy.  Your arguments were fully dismantled.

I haven't suggested any of those things occurred.
Not necessarily. Logging all calls makes sense.
A telephone is "busy" if off-hook, whether or not it's in use to make a call.
I know, but he was quite clear that he did remember the durations he mentioned. There's nothing unbelievable about "1 minute" and "3 minutes". There was even an attempt to query those on the basis that Pc West trended to speak slowly (a common trait in Essex), but Pc West stuck to his guns.
That doesn't make sense, as Bonnett couldn't have known at the time whether he'd been told everything. Anyway, Bonnett didn't record the age of 27 yrs for Sheila that Jeremy gave PC West.
In your opinion, but Jeremy didn't estimate the total duration of his call. He simply recalled being on hold for quite some time and gave an estimate of that time.
That's easy to assert, but it makes sense to many people, given that Bonnett's log starts without mentioning Jeremy and gives Sheila's age as 26, whereas Jeremy told Pc West she was 27.
He might have known. Various reasons are possible. Perhaps he simply had a good memory.
Nobody knows whether he planned as you suggest. He may simply have changed his mind.
It makes sense to log every call, as it isn't known in advance whether important new information will be given.

Your rambings totally avoid delaing with the points raised that dismantled your arguments.  Apparently now you are suggesting even more ridiculous things.  You seem to be waivering about Nevill knowing the phone number to Chelmsford and instead suggesting he left the phone off the hook as he went to look the number up or do something else.  Why would he leave the phone off the hook? It is clear that instead of followin gevidence where it leads you have decised without any evidence to believe that Jeremy is innocent and to just make up things to support your position.  That includes making up that Nevill phoned police and you will just make up anything to try to fit Jeremy's allegations and known facts.  We don't know if Jeremy's claim is true that he instanly called back and the phone was busy.  But in an effort to make his claims true you are ready to make up all sorts of tales.  The hilarious thinkg is that Jeremy supporters do this all the time then pjoject and claim that those who believe the offical story are engaging isn't such.  Hilarious!

Bonnet's log makes it clear that West told him that he received a call from Jeremy and that Jeremy claimed to have received a call from Nevill and wrote down the things that West told him came from Jeremy.  Bonnett also stated such when questioned.  You ignored the part of the log that said message passed to West from son because that demolishes your claims.

You also ignored that the 2 possible reasonable explanations for her age being listed as different is because either:

1) West provided a different age to Bonnett than West wrote down on his log

or

2) Bonnett wrote down a different age than West provided to him by either misunderstanding West's words or simply accidentally writing down a differnt number than he intended to write. 

Instead you maintain the unreaosnable explanation that Nevill called and gave the wrong age of 27 to West (which you have no evidence at all to support- no testimony no documentary evidence) then Jeremy called and provided the wrong age of 26 which West recorded on his log and then when he called Bonnett he decided to use age 27 like Nevill told him.  That is youar argument in a nutshell.  Far from having any basis is evidence it is totally contrived and mad eup.

For your position to have any basis at all you would need either a log from West where he wrote 27 and attrivuted the call to someone other than Jeremy or at lest testimony to that effect.  But West says only Jeremy called, Bonnett says that West told him only about Jeremy's call, Bonnett's log references West receiving a call from Jeremy, West's log references a call from Jeremy only and have evill phoned first then West would have told Jeremy about the call.  Your claim he would not tell Jeremy is indeed ludicrous.  You have no leg to stand on at all and you know it.  That is why you stopped quoting verbatim.  You are going to have a hard time avoiding my points though if you repsond to this because I repeated them so many times that it will be hard to snip them out.

[Adam]

There is no reason why Neville would call both Jeremy and the police. Or vice versa.

Why an earth phone the police and then put you're only son in danger. He won't answer the phone anyway.

Why an earth phone Jeremy to save the day, and then the police.

I created a thread on this. It was deleted and this exact same thread was created. I will look for my thread post which explains everything.

[scipio_usmc]

very patient and well written post reader.

What are you reading?  Reader got smoked to any rational observer.  Only the most extreme bias imaginable could make someone delusional enough to think otherwise.   

I posted the exact portion of Bonnett's log that proved him wrong- the log does indeed attribute the account that was detailed to Jeremy.  It clearly states message passed to CD (West) from Jeremy.

Moreover I took apart his claims with respect to the age difference between the 2 logs.  All that proves is that either:

1) West provided a different age to Bonnett than West wrote down on his log

or

2) Bonnett wrote down a different age than West provided to him by either misunderstanding West's words or simply accidentally writing down a differnt number than he intended to write. 

Neither of these supports his claim that the age difference was because of a call from Nevill, indeed Nevill would have said her age was 28 because he would have known her age.

[susan]

Adam I don't think Ralph Bamber phoned the police or Jeremy now this is just my opinion of course I have no evidence to prove this or otherwise.  Do hope you find your lost thread

[scipio_usmc]

Adam I don't think Ralph Bamber phoned the police or Jeremy now this is just my opinion of course I have no evidence to prove this or otherwise.  Do hope you find your lost thread

The burden is on the defense to produce evidence of these calls but can't.  There is a great deal of evidence that goes against these supposed calls being made though so your opinion has support.  The other side has no support and yet the burden of proof rests with them we don't have to prove a negative. So they have a severe problem.   

[susan]

Morning Scipio  I agree but think maybe Caroline was nearer to the truth over the two logs being one of the same so dismisses any evidence of the two calls.

[No-Bits]

I don't agree with any of the above and this has been done to death. If you want to believe that Neville called in the face of all the evidence pointing to the contrary, that up to you. It's pointless just repeating the same things - however. I am even more sure than before that Neville made no such call when I read the excuses put forward in favour of the call.

I must just add that it's not speculation to maintain that West would have told Jeremy about a call from Neville, it's 'common sense'

Especially so when the logs are read in conjunction with West's trial evidence.

jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1103.msg34166.html#msg34166

If I didn't know better, I would guess that Reader is simply pulling your leg. 

[Reader]

It's already been pointed out that the information is not the same - Sheila's age is given differently. Also, Bonnett's log doesn't say that the information about Sheila came from Jeremy (reporting a call from his father). The subject is completed as Daughter gone berserk, suggesting that Nevill gave the information.
We don't know that Pc West didn't log Nevill's call prior to logging Jeremy's call.
Not necessarily, that's just speculation.
The situation needn't have changed at all. Nevill could simply have changed his mind.
It's not a matter of need. Pc West just followed the usual procedure. It needn't become evident until later whether a second log is important.
That's just your opinion. The different logging of Sheila's age suffices.
What exactly are you specifying with the word "that"?
Seriousness depends on what has been communicated rather than the number dialled.

I don't agree with any of the above . . . I must just add that it's not speculation to maintain that West would have told Jeremy about a call from Neville, it's 'common sense'

You don't agree that Sheila's age is given differently in the two logs?
You don't agree that Nevill is capable of changing his mind?
You don't agree with a question that asks you to explain what you meant?
You don't agree that the police can make an assessment of the seriousness of a call due to its content, but instead think they tend to go by whether it's a 999 call to make such an assessment?
At least scipio_usmc is trying to explain his reasoning, whereas you're now just saying you disagree with everything.

Applying 'common sense' to form an opinion as to what Pc West would have done is, by definition, speculation. Pc West was physically capable of telling Jeremy about Nevill's call, but it's possible that he stuck to a standard procedure of logging all calls and dealing with them as efficiently as possible. How come you don't apply 'common sense' to explain Pc West's evidence that the clock he referred to "has on occasions been inaccurate, but on very few occasions", given that A/Ps John Stephen Holby Smith had apparently stated that the control room wall clock rarely showed an accurate time? Doesn't 'common sense' suggest that one of those officers was being untruthful about the accuracy of the clock? Doesn't 'common sense' indicate that the police would ensure that their clocks were reliable and accurate, especially in the control room?

Pc West's log of Jeremy's call gives his father's words as "Please come over. Your sister has gone crazy & has the gun." In contrast, Bonnett's log has just "Daughter gone berserk", then "daughter Sheila Bamber, aged 26yrs has got hold of one of my guns". Thus, his log omits the wording "Please come over" that Pc West logged in relation to Jeremy's call, gives Sheila's age differently, gives "berserk", whereas Pc West logged "crazy", and gives "has got hold of one of my guns", whereas Pc West's log gives "has the gun".

[Reader]

You made the false claim that Bonnet's log fails to attribute the account to Jeremy.

Bonnett logged "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber, after the phone went dead. Mr. Bamber has a collection of shotguns and ·410's." That doesn't assert that the preceding information about Sheila in the log was passed by Jeremy. It's consistent with Bonnett adding to the log a significant piece of information that also came via Pc West, but later and from a different source, the son of Mr. Bamber.

I proved the fallacy of your claim that it suggests Nevill called and gave a different age. I didn't just call it a nonsensical claim, I proved it to be a nonsensical claim.

You didn't prove a fallacy. I'm suggesting that Nevill gave Sheila's age to Pc West as 26, whereas Jeremy gave it as 27. That's not the only explanation of the difference that can be devised, but it could be the correct explanation. It's not nonsensical. It may well be the case that Sheila was 28, but that doesn't make my suggestion nonsensical or stupid. On occasion, people give their own age incorrectly by mistake - not very often, but it can sometimes occur.

. . . instead suggesting he left the phone off the hook as he went to look the number up or do something else.  Why would he leave the phone off the hook?

I'm suggesting that the telephone was either off-hook or being used to make another call, and that either is possible. Nevill may have ended his call to Jeremy because of something he heard. In that case, the telephone handset could have been off-hook for a short while due to Nevill pausing to listen to any sounds in the house.

Bonnett also stated such when questioned.

Bonnett was asked to make a statement, which he did, but we don't know what he was asked to put in his statement. You haven't presented anything to show he was formally questioned at any stage in relation to this case. His statement indicates that he received a call from Pc West and after the call from Pc West ended, he contacted car CA07 and sent it to WHF. The statement doesn't mention Jeremy or Nevill.

Bonnett says that West told him only about Jeremy's call

He didn't say that. That's just your conclusion from the content of his log.

[scipio_usmc]

Bonnett logged "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber, after the phone went dead. Mr. Bamber has a collection of shotguns and ·410's." That doesn't assert that the preceding information about Sheila in the log was passed by Jeremy. It's consistent with Bonnett adding to the log a significant piece of information that also came via Pc West, but later and from a different source, the son of Mr. Bamber.

It means the entire message was passed to CD West from Jeremy not merely the sentence that follows about the shotguns.  Your reading makes no sense.

It clearly states that Jeremy asserted to West that he was speaking to his father and the phone went dead  and his father passed the entire preceding message before it went dead.  Then it adds about the shotguns.  It doesn't say son called after Nevill indicating there is a collection of shotguns.  Nor does it say Nevill called and Jeremy called to indicate the same message passed to police by Nevill was passed to his son.  It says the preceding message was passed from his son before the line went dead.  That part about passing it before the line went dead is fatal to your claim that Jeremy called and simply provided information about the shotguns. 

When questioned both men state that Jeremy was the source of the infromation not Nevill and that there was only information from Jeremy so there is no doubt at all as to what was meant.

You are straining to read it in a manner that is untenable and defies the plain language as well as the testimony of the 2 dispatchers.  you are trying to pretend it says, "preceding message was also passed to son by Nevill Bamber"  but it doesn't say that.  Nor does it say, "son also spoke to father and added that there is a collection of shotguns."  There is no language at all to indicate the message was passed to police by Nevill and that Jeremy called later with the same story.  Indeed Nevill would have told police that before calling them he had called his son and told his son to go over. 

Why did police to contact the house?  Because of Jeremy's story that the phone call was disconnected and line was busy.  They would have calmed him down to say don't worry he is alive still because after
phoning you he phoned us.
   

You didn't prove a fallacy. I'm suggesting that Nevill gave Sheila's age to Pc West as 26, whereas Jeremy gave it as 27. That's not the only explanation of the difference that can be devised, but it could be the correct explanation. It's not nonsensical. It may well be the case that Sheila was 28, but that doesn't make my suggestion nonsensical or stupid. On occasion, people give their own age incorrectly by mistake - not very often, but it can sometimes occur.

Your position makes no sense at all for the reasons I already articulated.  I already filled out your allegation in full.  You are suggesting that West wrote down age 26 on the log of Jeremy's call and yet told Bonnett age 27 because he fielded a prior call from Nevill where Nevill provided him the wrong age of 27. So you are suggesting West fielded a call from Nevill, he either failed to wrote up a log of the call  or he destroyed it later and that Nevill had provided her age as 27 so West used that when he was giving the account to Bonnett. This giant conspiracy all because he wrote age 26 and yet Bonnett listed 27.  That's a giant leap and huge amount of specualtion based on something easily explained by either:

1) West accidentally providing Bonnett with a different age than West had written down

or

2) West telling Bonnett age 27 though he meant to say 26

or

3) West telling Bonnett age 27 but Bonnett misunderstanding him

That is the field of possiiblities your suggestion is not a logical possibility it is a giant conspiracy web totally unsupported by the simple error  and it further hinges on your erroenous reading of message passed by son meaning only the essage about shotguns though as already explained above that is nonsense.

Hence your attempts are equivalent to attempting to construct a house of cards on vibrating bed- it won't get off the ground.

I'm suggesting that the telephone was either off-hook or being used to make another call, and that either is possible. Nevill may have ended his call to Jeremy because of something he heard. In that case, the telephone handset could have been off-hook for a short while due to Nevill pausing to listen to any sounds in the house.

If he hears a noise he wants to investigate then he would hang the phone up not disconnect the call by holding the buttons down.  It is father to hand up a phone by simply placing the reciver down than to hold the button(s) down for a suitable amount of time for the call to disconnect.

Worse yet the headset was off the phone when the killings took place so we are being asked to believe he held the buttons down to hang up the phone while keeping the headset off the hook and left it that way for a bit.  Returned, hung it up to call police then left it off the phone again because that is how it was found.  It doesn't make sense.

There are a great number of things that would have happened had Nevill made a call to police and yet none of these things did happen.  Jeremy would have been told of the call and not told to go.  They would not have needed to do the line check because they woudl have known Nevill used the phone after calling Jeremy.  The police would have known about the call and DCI Jones woudl have used it to put the suspicions of the family to bed.  I can go on and on but there is no need to these are more than sufficient.   

Bonnett was asked to make a statement, which he did, but we don't know what he was asked to put in his statement. You haven't presented anything to show he was formally questioned at any stage in relation to this case. His statement indicates that he received a call from Pc West and after the call from Pc West ended, he contacted car CA07 and sent it to WHF. The statement doesn't mention Jeremy or Nevill.
He didn't say that. That's just your conclusion from the content of his log.

He was questioned by COLP in 1991.  More importantly, trying to pretend he wrote the log in response to Nevill's call and yet would not mention it was in response to Nevill's call is absurd.  The on;y way for tha tto be the case would be if he was told to conceal a call from Nevill and pretend there had only been a call from Jeremy.  There is no way to suggest such could have been innocently left out.  The only way woudl be if it were intentional to conceal and there is no evidence at all to support such or any other claims you are making.  You are straining beyond all reason to try to pretend it is possible that Bonnett's log reflects a call from Nevill to police.     

[Reader]

It means the entire message was passed to CD West from Jeremy not merely the sentence that follows about the shotguns.

That's your interpretation, but not what is specifically stated in the log. It is possible to interpret it in the way I explained.

It clearly states . . . that Jeremy asserted to West his father passed the entire preceding message before it went dead.

No, as you're adding the wording "entire preceding", which isn't in the log.

Nor does it say Nevill called and Jeremy called to indicate the same message passed to police by Nevill was passed to his son.

Of course, as it wasn't the same message. Nevill hadn't mentioned Jeremy or the shotguns in his message. He had mentioned Sheila, but using different words and had given her age differently.

When questioned, both men state that Jeremy was the source of the information, not Nevill, and that there was only information from Jeremy.

At Jeremy's trial, Pc West wasn't asked whether Nevill had called him, and didn't state that there was only information from Jeremy. Bonnett wasn't questioned at the trial. If you are referring to the COLP enquiry, post the relevant COLP documents.

Nevill would have told police that before calling them he had called his son and told his son to go over.

Not necessarily. What mattered most was the information about Sheila. Bonnett's log doesn't state that Jeremy had been asked to come over.

Why did police contact the house?  Because of Jeremy's story that the phone call was disconnected and line was busy.

Of course, but it was Pc West that tried the WHF number after Jeremy's call. Bonnett's reference to the line going dead is in his added remarks that mention information passed by the son of Mr. Bamber. Note that Pc West timed the line test at 3:42, which fits nicely with an immediate preceding call from Jeremy that lasted about six minutes. In your timeline, what was Pc West doing between 3:36 and 3:42?

You are suggesting that West wrote down age 26 on the log of Jeremy's call and yet told Bonnett age 27 because he fielded a prior call from Nevill where Nevill provided him the wrong age of 27.

No, the other way round. Jeremy gave 27 and Pc West wrote that on his disclosed log. Bonnett wrote 26, which indicates PC West told him 26, which in turn suggests Pc West was told 26, which in turn suggests Pc West was quoting information from Nevill, as Jeremy told him 27 (at about 3:36am).

If he hears a noise he wants to investigate then he would hang the phone up not disconnect the call by holding the buttons down.

Not necessarily. I was talking about a possible short period of time, perhaps just the time needed to listen at the door, then close the door, but he may have called the police straight away. Even if he replaced the handset after calling the police, that doesn't mean it wasn't taken off-hook again later. Jeremy said he tried the line several times and then called Sheila. He didn't say he tried the WHF number again after calling Sheila.

He was questioned by COLP in 1991.

Transcript available? If not, how do you know what was said?

The only way for that to be the case would be if he was told to conceal a call from Nevill and pretend there had only been a call from Jeremy.

Obviously, Nevill's call to the police was concealed. The original reasons for that related to police failings, not a plan to fit up Jeremy.

[No-Bits]

That's your interpretation, but not what is specifically stated in the log. It is possible to interpret it in the way I explained.
No, as you're adding the wording "entire preceding", which isn't in the log.
Of course, as it wasn't the same message. Nevill hadn't mentioned Jeremy or the shotguns in his message. He had mentioned Sheila, but using different words and had given her age differently.
At Jeremy's trial, Pc West wasn't asked whether Nevill had called him, and didn't state that there was only information from Jeremy. Bonnett wasn't questioned at the trial. If you are referring to the COLP enquiry, post the relevant COLP documents.
Not necessarily. What mattered most was the information about Sheila. Bonnett's log doesn't state that Jeremy had been asked to come over.
Of course, but it was Pc West that tried the WHF number after Jeremy's call. Bonnett's reference to the line going dead is in his added remarks that mention information passed by the son of Mr. Bamber. Note that Pc West timed the line test at 3:42, which fits nicely with an immediate preceding call from Jeremy that lasted about six minutes. In your timeline, what was Pc West doing between 3:36 and 3:42?
No, the other way round. Jeremy gave 27 and Pc West wrote that on his disclosed log. Bonnett wrote 26, which indicates PC West told him 26, which in turn suggests Pc West was told 26, which in turn suggests Pc West was quoting information from Nevill, as Jeremy told him 27 (at about 3:36am).
Not necessarily. I was talking about a possible short period of time, perhaps just the time needed to listen at the door, then close the door, but he may have called the police straight away. Even if he replaced the handset after calling the police, that doesn't mean it wasn't taken off-hook again later. Jeremy said he tried the line several times and then called Sheila. He didn't say he tried the WHF number again after calling Sheila.
Transcript available? If not, how do you know what was said?
Obviously, Nevill's call to the police was concealed. The original reasons for that related to police failings, not a plan to fit up Jeremy.

West testified and gave evidence.

Are you suggesting he lied or withheld information?

If so, on what grounds? 

[Jan]

I cant quite get my head round why the timings and that 10 minutes was so important but the police even before the court case thought it was because they investigated what happened ?