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

[lookout]

We do because he changed his clothes and his car was outside. He also asked West if the police car would pick him up on route to WHF.

He'd have had a change of clothes at the farmhouse having lived there. Old clothes would have burned quickly in the AGA------------hence the red hot poker ( Nevilles' injuries ?)
Yes,we know he asked to be picked up.Couldn't it have been a ploy to make it look as though he'd been at home all night ?

[lookout]

Oh,these prosecutors are slow 

[No-Bits]

Maybe now the campaign team or his legal team can enlighten Jeremy by showing him this topic and clue him in on the OBVIOUS by showing him the work you've done?

I think failure to accept what the log actually contains is failure to admit the truth and shows a dis-honest campaign team a dis-honest legal team and a dis-honest Bamber.

To be fair (and NGB may well correct me), whilst the campaign team are quite clearly promoting outright lies and fantasy, I don't believe it is the currently appointed legal teams responsibility to correct them.

A legal professional obviously has a responsibility towards their clients best interests, but I wouldn't say that automatically makes them dishonest. A legal professional can represent somebody, regardless as to their personal beliefs towards his guilt or innocence, can't they? 

[guest154]

To be fair (and NGB may well correct me), whilst the campaign team are quite clearly promoting outright lies and fantasy, I don't believe it is the currently appointed legal teams responsibility to correct them.

A legal professional obviously has a responsibility towards their clients best interests, but I wouldn't say that automatically makes them dishonest. A legal professional can represent somebody, regardless as to their personal beliefs towards his guilt or innocence, can't they? 

Point being their responsibility towards Jeremy should be to stop him damaging the perception of his own case and promoting the call (amongst other things) as fact when they are known fiction is damaging.

I do find it strange the campaign team and the legal team seem to be exclusively seperate. But when you have a campaign team and an official website promoting lies it makes all parties involved look bad.

[No-Bits]

Point being their responsibility towards Jeremy should be to stop him damaging the perception of his own case and promoting the call (amongst other things) as fact when they are known fiction is damaging.

I do find it strange the campaign team and the legal team seem to be exclusively seperate. But when you have a campaign team and an official website promoting lies it makes all parties involved look bad.

I'm not sure of the setup. 

[Caroline]

There were definately two calls made to police...

The contents of PC Wests 3.26,am phone log were problematic to the prosecution / police case, for the following legal  reasons, depending upon who the caller was. (Ralph or Jeremy) - hence why one of zhe most astonishing deceptions in criminal proceedings was acted out, without revealing the full contents of Wests 3.26am phone log...

I can tell you, that the only detail mentioned contained in his log, was the time (3.26am),  which when added to the contents of Bonnetts phone log (3.36am) produced a false scenario for the jury to condider, this being a question abour the timing of the call having been made 10 minutes earlier than that recorded by Bonnett (3.36am)  in the other phone log....

Hi Mike,

It's Bonnet's log that its timed as 03:26 and Wests is 03:36. However, if you're suggesting that Neville did call the police at either 03:26 or 03:36, this is even more problematic for the timing of events. Jeremy said he got a call from Neville at 03:10 - so you would imagine that Neville would call the police (using the emergency number) either before, or 'straight' after his call to Jeremy (although I see no reason to call Jeremy if he's called the police). However, if he called at 03:26 - that's a full 16 minutes of dong what? And why would the phone be engaged if he didn't call the police until 16 minutes later? If he called at 3:36, that's even longer. It's also problematic because the phone was engaged when both Jeremy and West called the WHF number. Too much of a coincidence that the number would be engaged on both occasions if Neville were alive and well during all this phoning?

It also still doesn't answer why such a call would be kept secret - there is no threat to national security in releasing the contents of Neville's call for help after his daughter had gone berserk with a gun. Everyone already knew that anyway! Stan Jones would have known about such a call so Taff would have no reason to try and convince him that Jeremy was innocent - he'd have known.

[ngb1066]

I know. I didn't say it had, but it is being promoted as a call from Neville.

Maybe you could comment your opinion on it, or Caroline's conclusions?

But you did say his legal team were dishonest, in the context of the alleged call from Neville.   Will you now withdraw your suggestion that the legal team are/were dishonest?

[ngb1066]

To be fair (and NGB may well correct me), whilst the campaign team are quite clearly promoting outright lies and fantasy, I don't believe it is the currently appointed legal teams responsibility to correct them.

It is not, you are correct.

A legal professional obviously has a responsibility towards their clients best interests, but I wouldn't say that automatically makes them dishonest. A legal professional can represent somebody, regardless as to their personal beliefs towards his guilt or innocence, can't they? 

Yes they can, again you are correct.

[guest154]

But you did say his legal team were dishonest, in the context of the alleged call from Neville.   Will you now withdraw your suggestion that the legal team are/were dishonest?

I don't think you've understood the post I made, shown below.

Maybe now the campaign team or his legal team can enlighten Jeremy by showing him this topic and clue him in on the OBVIOUS by showing him the work you've done?

I think failure to accept what the log actually contains is failure to admit the truth and shows a dis-honest campaign team a dis-honest legal team and a dis-honest Bamber.

I'm saying now that it is evidently clear what the document shows - maybe this can be now explained to Jeremy. Once that has happened failure to then accept what is clearly shown in the document would make all parties invovled come across as dishonest.

[ngb1066]

I don't think you've understood the post I made, shown below.


I'm saying now that it is evidently clear what the document shows - maybe this can be now explained to Jeremy. Once that has happened failure to then accept what is clearly shown in the document would make all parties invovled come across as dishonest.

I have understood your post clearly.  You referred to "his dishonest legal team".  I pointed out that his legal team have not referred to a call by Nevill to the police.  Your reference to dishonesty is therefore, even on your premise that the call did not take place, completely unfounded.  Will you now withdraw it?

 

[guest154]

No.

I've made it clear that what you're saying I said isn't what I said or meant. 

If they show Bamber the documents and explain to him what they are - and still it is promoted by anyone involved with Bamber - then it makes everyone look dishonest - but that hasn't happened which is why I said IF they show and IF it is still promoted as something it isn't.

Instead of trying to get me to withdraw something I have not said it would make more sense for you and those around Jeremy to get him to withdraw his untrue claim that the document shows a call from his father.

[No-Bits]

I have understood your post clearly.  You referred to "his dishonest legal team".  I pointed out that his legal team have not referred to a call by Nevill to the police.  Your reference to dishonesty is therefore, even on your premise that the call did not take place, completely unfounded.  Will you now withdraw it?

 

There is, or has been, some sort of synergy between the legal team(s) and the Campaign Team, that appears obvious due to the Campaign Teams access to legal documents.

Therefore it is not unreasonable for a person to think that the legal team endorses the Campaign Teams allegations and propaganda in some manner.

Whilst I won't ask you to agree, I think it's quite apparent that the Campaign Team are propagating lies and falsehoods. It would not be inappropriate to describe their 'antics' as being dishonest, even if those responsible for the Campaign Team had been manipulated or brainwashed.

Bearing the above in mind, I can understand why Mat may consider the legal team to have had a role in the Campaign Teams dishonesty. If indeed that is the conclusion that Mat has come to.

It's not a position that I subscribe to, but I can understand why some people may do so.

It isn't the legal teams responsibility to keep the Campaign Team in check, that is clear, but given the apparent communication between the two groups, it is, to a lay person, difficult to distinguish one from the other.

[ngb1066]

There is, or has been, some sort of synergy between the legal team(s) and the Campaign Team, that appears obvious due to the Campaign Teams access to legal documents.

Therefore it is not unreasonable for a person to think that the legal team endorses the Campaign Teams allegations and propaganda in some manner.

Whilst I won't ask you to agree, I think it's quite apparent that the Campaign Team are propagating lies and falsehoods. It would not be inappropriate to describe their 'antics' as being dishonest, even if those responsible for the Campaign Team had been manipulated or brainwashed.

Bearing the above in mind, I can understand why Mat may consider the legal team to have had a role in the Campaign Teams dishonesty. If indeed that is the conclusion that Mat has come to.

It's not a position that I subscribe to, but I can understand why some people may do so.

It isn't the legal teams responsibility to keep the Campaign Team in check, that is clear, but given the apparent communication between the two groups, it is, to a lay person, difficult to distinguish one from the other.

I am surprised you take that position Harters.  I think you may misunderstand the relationship which has existed between the campaign team and Jeremy's legal team.

 

[No-Bits]

I am surprised you take that position Harters.  I think you may misunderstand the relationship which has existed between the campaign team and Jeremy's legal team.

I think you may have misunderstood NGB, I don't know anything about the current relationship and do not intend to suggest in any way anything untoward.

However, legal teams of the past have certainly acted in a less than professional manner, endorsing fantasy and lies. The GDS era sticks out most prominently.

I am not surprised that people think the current legal team endorse and control the Campaign team.

The 'Official' Campaign Team.

[ngb1066]

I think you may have misunderstood NGB, I don't know anything about the current relationship and do not intend to suggest in any way anything untoward.

However, legal teams of the past have certainly acted in a less than professional manner, endorsing fantasy and lies. The GDS era sticks out most prominently.

I am not surprised that people think the current legal team endorse and control the Campaign team.

The 'Official' Campaign Team.

I agree with you about GDS.  That episode did the defence no favours.