Surely The Timings Are Incorrect?

[jon]

The Bonnet log was the one they used at trial - it's says so on Jeremy's website, it was Wests log that they found in 2004.

Sorry my mistake , now why do you believe there was a court case to prevent it's release ?
If it's all simply explained away , how much did the court case cost EP ?

[Reader]

It was Caroline's mistake. Jeremy's website is misleading on that point. In Pc West's evidence posted here, it's very clear that Pc West obtained and referred to his C1 log in court, as he answered questions (such as a question about Sheila's age) by reference to it (but it's not clear that the Jury were given a copy of that log).

He went on to state very clearly that he used his personal radio to contact Witham so that they could send a car, and that car was presumably CA07, as we know that came from Witham, whereas car CA05 was much further away (although possibly based at Maldon), as it took ages to arrive.

[Caroline]

Sorry my mistake , now why do you believe the was a court case to prevent it's release ?
If it's all simply explained away , how much did the court case cost EP ?

I agree but I think it might simply be because the writing of the logs was pretty shoddy - mistakes galore and it puts them in a bad light or perhaps they knew that Jeremy would try to claim that there were two calls. I honestly don't know. However, I agree that they should just release what they're holding or have someone from his legal team go through everything.

[Caroline]

It was Caroline's mistake. Jeremy's website is misleading on that point. In Pc West's evidence posted here, it's very clear that Pc West obtained and referred to his C1 log in court, as he answered questions (such as a question about Sheila's age) by reference to it (but it's not clear that the Jury were given a copy of that log).

He went on to state very clearly that he used his personal radio to contact Witham so that they could send a car, and that car was presumably CA07, as we know that came from Witham, whereas car CA05 was much further away (although possibly based at Maldon), as it took ages to arrive.

My mistake? I think I might have remembered if I had written the info for the Bamber website  !! But it's not incorrect, the website is clear - just because he referred to his log, doesn't mean the jury saw it and that is what we're talking about - what the JURY saw.

You're speculating about which car was sent from his call but Bonnet is clear as to which car was sent from his call.

[Caroline]

The JB official site is clear about which log the jury didn't see but far from being hidden from the defense, West's log must have been in court if he referred to it. So claims that it was withheld don't stand up. This is what the OS states. There is another explanation of why West wrote down the time incorrectly - he filled in the time 'after' the call ended!

[Reader]

My mistake?

Yes, your mistake, as you were saying it was Pc West's log that surfaced in 2004. That doesn't make sense, as it was used in the trial and Sheila's logged age was stated at trial. Had Bonnett's log been available at trial, the defence would surely have known that Sheila's age was logged as 26 there. Notice that Mr Arlidge's questioning of Pc West strongly suggests that he had already seen Pc West's C1 log. The log should have been given an exhibit number, but it seems that it wasn't.

You're speculating about which car was sent from his call but Bonnet is clear as to which car was sent from his call.

How so? What exactly in Bonnett's log are you referring to?

By the way, Pc West explained that normal practice is to record the time of the call at the beginning of the call. When asked whether or not he always adhered to that, he said "It is not always practicable to adhere to it, but if we can yes." There is nothing to suggest it wasn't practicable for him to record the time of Jeremy's call at the beginning of the call.

[Caroline]

Yes, your mistake, as you were saying it was Pc West's log that surfaced in 2004. That doesn't make sense, as it was used in the trial and Sheila's logged age was stated at trial. Had Bonnett's log been available at trial, the defence would surely have known that Sheila's age was logged as 26 there. Notice that Mr Arlidge's questioning of Pc West strongly suggests that he had already seen Pc West's C1 log. The log should have been given an exhibit number, but it seems that it wasn't.

How so? What exactly in Bonnett's log are you referring to?

By the way, Pc West explained that normal practice is to record the time of the call at the beginning of the call. When asked whether or not he always adhered to that, he said "It is not always practicable to adhere to it, but if we can yes." There is nothing to suggest it wasn't practicable for him to record the time of Jeremy's call at the beginning of the call.

Please refer to the exert below. It clearly states that West's log "the C1 log relating to Jeremy’s 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" But has this to say about Bonnet's log (Neville's call) "The above statement (‘message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber’) enabled the prosecution to claim that the one log available to the jury (referring to Nevill’s call) actually referred to the call made by Jeremy[4].  The members of the jury were completely unaware that a separate call had been made by Nevill Bamber"

[No-Bits]

Wasn't Bonnett's log Exhibit No 29 at the original trial? 

[Caroline]

Wasn't Bonnett's log Exhibit No 29 at the original trial? 

It's stamped as such - cheers Harters! People must think I make this stuff up for the hell of it. It's all there for people to read, you just have to apply a bit of logic but instead, as usual - it's a case of lets shoot the messenger 

[No-Bits]

It's stamped as such - cheers Harters! People must think I make this stuff up for the hell of it. It's all there for people to read, you just have to apply a bit of logic but instead, as usual - it's a case of lets shoot the messenger 

It's not as if it's particularly complicated to grasp. It seems that people are making a concerted effort not to get it. It's up to them I guess. 

So it looks like both logs were available at the original trial? 

[Caroline]

It's not as if it's particularly complicated to grasp.IIt seems that people are making a concerted effort not to get it. It's up to them I guess. 

So it looks like both logs were available at the original trial? 

Yes, both were there just Wests wasn't shown to the jury, but Bonnet's log says the same thing anyway.

[guest154]

It's not as if it's particularly complicated to grasp. It seems that people are making a concerted effort not to get it. It's up to them I guess. 

So it looks like both logs were available at the original trial? 

It's hard to admit when you are wrong. Especially when you have spent so long trying to convince people you are right. I just can't think of a decent explanation for why anyone can't see what Caroline is saying. Its clear - surely?

[Caroline]

It's hard to admit when you are wrong. Especially when you have spent so long trying to convince people you are right. I just can't think of a decent explanation for why anyone can't see what Caroline is saying. Its clear - surely?

T'is to me 

[gringo]

But as gringo points out innocent men have been framed before, police have falsified evidence many times when they have thought someone was guilty but didn't think they had enough to convict or wanted to be certain of a conviction. But where is there an example of someone being framed when the police are certain they were innocent because they knew who the culprit was?

  Have you heard of the M25 three because it is more than arguable that the police knew that the real culprits were very probably the prosecutions main witnesses.
     The witnesses in question in fact admitted hiding and handling some of the stolen property,admitted stealing the spitfire car used in the crimes,admitted possession of a handgun used by the gang,admitted disposing of the stolen vauxhall and renault cars and fitted the descriptions of the assailants given by the victims, which incidentally was two white and one black male whilst the three convicted were all black.
     Do you think it credible to claim that the police in this instance not only knowingly framed innocent but did so knowing the real culprits were probably their main witnesses.

[Caroline]

  Have you heard of the M25 three because it is more than arguable that the police knew that the real culprits were very probably the prosecutions main witnesses.
     The witnesses in question in fact admitted hiding and handling some of the stolen property,admitted stealing the spitfire car used in the crimes,admitted possession of a handgun used by the gang,admitted disposing of the stolen vauxhall and renault cars and fitted the descriptions of the assailants given by the victims, which incidentally was two white and one black male whilst the three convicted were all black.
     Do you think it credible to claim that the police in this instance not only knowingly framed innocent but did so knowing the real culprits were probably their main witnesses.

It's the words 'very probably' in the Bamber case if they KNEW Neville had called they KNEW he was innocent -not very probably, they KNEW. It's different. Plus if there is a racial element, it's a completely different issue.