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, it's not possible to intepret it the way you claim. Your interpretation is not supported by the plain language of the document.
Your intepretatiton is contradicted by all available evidence and logic and SOLELY stems from you being too biased to be rational. you are so desperate to find a way to defend Jeremy that you are absurdedly pretending that the log makes it appear that West told Bonnett that Nevill himself passed a message to West and that Bonnett simply neglected to mention such in his various statements as did West in his 2 statements, trial testimony and statement to COLP. You are trying to pretend that West and Bonneett just didn't say such because they were not asked. Your games are silly.
All you are doing is embarrassing yourself in the process.
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.
I'm not adding anything. He wrote a message attributed to Nevill AKA Mr. Bamber. right after it he wrote, "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber after the phone went dead". What message was passed to the CD by the son of Mr. Bamber? The preceding message naturally because that is the message that Jeremy attributed to his father before the phone went dead.
You want to ignore the context, the plain language and even all the statements given by West and Bonnett to pretend that Bonnett's comment was that Jeremy just passed the message about Nevill having a collection of shotguns only. If that were the case then Bonnett would have written something to the effect of, "CD spoke to Mr Bamber's son afterward and he indicated Mr. Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410s." He would not write such in two sentences in the following manner:
"Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber after the phone went dead. Mr. Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410s"
If his comment was to just say Jeremy mentioned the shotgun collection he would have done it in a single sentence. Your straining betrays your bias it is that simple.
"Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber
after the phone went dead." What message was passed to Jeremy BEFORE the phone went dead that was passed by Jeremy to the CD AFTER the
phone went dead? That his father told him Sheila had gone crazy and had a gun. There is no way at all to get around such and pretend the nonsense you are pretending.
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.
Jeremy's defense has not released their COLP interviews. Nor have they released the 2 statements that West provided. The burden rests with you not me to prove that hese statements and interviews leave open the possibility of a call from Nevill. You have not read any of them so have no ability to say such. You are just playing pathetic games though trying to pretend that if West had been asked at trial if he received a call from Nevill that he might have answered yes. Quite clearly he would have answered no.
If Nevill had already called West previously then West would not have had any reason to ask for Nevill's name, address and phone number. He already would have gotten such from Nevill. Nor woudl he have needed to put Jeremy on hold to contact the information oom to find out what police station covered that area and to find cars that could respond because he already would have found out and sent a car in response to Nevill's call. So he would have told Jeremy he already received a call from Nevill and already dispatched a car instea dof taking down information he already had and pretending he knew nothing about the situation.
Jeremy was worried by the fact the call was disconnected and then phone busy. He would have told Jeremy not to worry his father was still alive because he called police right after he called Jeremy and that is why the phone was busy.
Instead police checked the line to see if it was busy as Jeremy claimed and confirmed it was off the hook still. Had Nevill called it would have been used after calling Jeremy and thus not continuously off the hook.
Instead of facing reality you are humilating yourself by denying obvious facts and evidence to make ridiculous suggesitons.
This testimony leaves no question that West only asserts receiving a call from Jeremy not a call from Jeremy after speaking to Nevill:
The final nail in the coffin of your suggestion that West might have indicated a call from Nevill being received is that in his notebook he mad eno mention of it. His notebook is where he noted all the significant things that he did that day. Nothing about a call from Nevill and the defense was given a copy of that notebook and even referenced it in the cross examination. Likewise Bonnett's notebook was provided to the defense and nothing about a call from Nevill. Your claims are all baseless.
Bonnett's notebook and written statement mention a single call from West not multiple calls and in repsonse to West's call where he relayed Jeremy's message Bonnett sent CA7 not earlier. Had Nevill called he would have sent the car as a result to that call not Jeremy's.
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.
There obcviously was no call from Nevill to concela and niether West nor Bonnett woudl have any reaosn on day 1 let alone all of August 1985 to conceal a call from nevill. It would have been in their notebooks and mentioned to Jeremy. Why was it significant to get so much information about Sheial from jeremy if Nevill had already provided it? Why would they ask Nevill's address and phone number if he had already provided it? Nevill woudl have been asked to provide all such infromation so they already woudl have had it and alreayd would have dispatched police.
Moreover, they would have had no need to check the line because they would KNOW that Nevill used the phone after speaking with Jeremy had he called police after speaking to Jeremy.
Eveyrthing you claim makes no sense and is totally unsupported by any of the evidence that you try to rely upon. Your claims have been throughly debunked. Ther eis nothing left for you to do other than admit defeat or say you don't care about logic or evidence you are so biased in favor of Jeremy that you choose to believe Neivll called despite not having a shred of proof to suggest such and a large amount of evidence prving you wrong.
