Surely The Timings Are Incorrect?

[gringo]

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.

I used the words "very probably" advisedly because the three witnesses have not subsequently been charged or convicted but I think we can all work out the reasons for this.
     If you don't know about the case then perhaps read up on it and you will see that it is not tenable to argue that the police didn't know. Then perhaps you won't erroneously conclude that the "police ethical code" only allows them to frame guilty men who they know to guilty but lack evidence? or innocent men but only under the circumstances where they can't catch the real culprit but definitely not innocent men when they know who really dunnit!
     The above sums up your current stance on police corruption although I now see that if race is involved then the rules change again. It's certainly intricate this unwritten ethical code that you believe the police ascribe to.

[Caroline]

I used the words "very probably" advisedly because the three witnesses have not subsequently been charged or convicted but I think we can all work out the reasons for this.
     If you don't know about the case then perhaps read up on it and you will see that it is not tenable to argue that the police didn't know. Then perhaps you won't erroneously conclude that the "police ethical code" only allows them to frame guilty men who they know to guilty but lack evidence? or innocent men but only under the circumstances where they can't catch the real culprit but definitely not innocent men when they know who really dunnit!
     The above sums up your current stance on police corruption although I now see that if race is involved then the rules change again. It's certainly intricate this unwritten ethical code that you believe the police ascribe to.

It sounds like you want me to say that I agree police would frame Jeremy Bamber when they KNEW Sheila was guilty and I'm not going to sat it because I don't believe that that is what happened. I believe he is guilty and using anything he possibly can to wrangle out of it. Of course a racial case is different to the Bamber case and I think you know that.

[gringo]

It sounds like you want me to say that I agree police would frame Jeremy Bamber when they KNEW Sheila was guilty and I'm not going to sat it because I don't believe that that is what happened. I believe he is guilty and using anything he possibly can to wrangle out of it. Of course a racial case is different to the Bamber case and I think you know that.

You asked me to provide an example of police framing someone when they knew who the real culprits were so I gave you an example where it is difficult to argue otherwise.
       It was you who made the claim that it is somehow different when police know the real culprit and that under these circumstances they wouldn't frame an innocent man.
      If you believe that I want you to agree and say anything of the sort then you are mistaken, I am just pointing out the flaws in your argument, which is ever evolving apparently.
      Your views on police corruption and their ethics is bizarre and whether you believe that Jeremy was framed,despite some police knowing of his innocence, or not is neither here nor there. What is clear is that the reasoning on which this belief is based is merely your opinion of police ethics which is seemingly made up as you go along.

[Caroline]

You asked me to provide an example of police framing someone when they knew who the real culprits were so I gave you an example where it is difficult to argue otherwise.
       It was you who made the claim that it is somehow different when police know the real culprit and that under these circumstances they wouldn't frame an innocent man.
      If you believe that I want you to agree and say anything of the sort then you are mistaken, I am just pointing out the flaws in your argument, which is ever evolving apparently.
      Your views on police corruption and their ethics is bizarre and whether you believe that Jeremy was framed,despite some police knowing of his innocence, or not is neither here nor there. What is clear is that the reasoning on which this belief is based is merely your opinion of police ethics which is seemingly made up as you go along.

I think the same about your views - we'll have to agree to disagree but your example is nothing like the Bamber case. You used the term 'Very Probably' and them admitted there was a racial element.

[Caroline]

I think the same about your views - we'll have to agree to disagree but your example is nothing like the Bamber case. You used the term 'Very Probably' and then admitted there was a racial element.

If you have an example there police definitely knew an individual was innocent and was framed whilst knowing who the real culprit was - without a racial element. Then I will have to concede that it does happen. However in the mean time, what motive would EP have for doing such a thing?

[gringo]

If you have an example there police definitely knew an individual was innocent and was framed whilst knowing who the real culprit was - without a racial element. Then I will have to concede that it does happen. However in the mean time, what motive would EP have for doing such a thing?

I think the same about your views - we'll have to agree to disagree but your example is nothing like the Bamber case. You used the term 'Very Probably' and them admitted there was a racial element.

I made clear why I used the "very probably" and it isn't because it is only very probable that the police knew. Read it and see for yourself. As for me "admitting there was a racial element" as if to imply that I should have somehow implicitly understood that blacks or races other than white would obviously be seen as ok to frame even in circumstances where they know the real perpetrator; you are simply shifting the goalposts and blatantly so.
         When did you specify that police would never frame an innocent man when knowing the real culprit unless they were black when they might do? It is you who have decided that the three were framed because they were black despite seemingly knowing very little about the case.
         You have already conceded the point anyway with your new addition of a racial element not being present in your qualifying criteria.
   

[Caroline]

I made clear why I used the "very probably" and it isn't because it is only very probable that the police knew. Read it and see for yourself. As for me "admitting there was a racial element" as if to imply that I should have somehow implicitly understood that blacks or races other than white would obviously be seen as ok to frame even in circumstances where they know the real perpetrator; you are simply shifting the goalposts and blatantly so.
         When did you specify that police would never frame an innocent man when knowing the real culprit unless they were black when they might do? It is you who have decided that the three were framed because they were black despite seemingly knowing very little about the case.
         You have already conceded the point anyway with your new addition of a racial element not being present in your qualifying criteria.
   

No, I haven't conceded anything - it's not unreasonable to ask for an example of a similar case to the one being discussed. It's not like the police haven't been accused of being institutionally racist in the past and that could be an element that played a role in their lack of concern for framing these guys - I'm not saying it's right but cases of racism are well documented. I will read about the case.

[Alias]

Those logs don´t prove anything, one way or the other. Isn´t that the conclusion?

[Caroline]

Those logs don´t prove anything, one way or the other. Isn´t that the conclusion?

No, they prove there was no second call by Neville. Jeremy's call must have been 'before; 03:26 because that's when West relayed Jeremy's call to Bonnet and as Bonnet's log was simply a regurgitation of Jeremy's call, there is no call (logged or otherwise) from Neville. Both logs refer to Jeremy's call. 

[Alias]

I believe Jeremy will hang on to anything. But this alleged phone call is not important in either proving Jeremy´s guilt or innosence, is it? What can be proven by this other than Jeremy holding on to anything that can free him?

[Caroline]

I believe Jeremy will hang on to anything. But this alleged phone call is not important in either proving Jeremy´s guilt or innosence, is it? What can be proven by this other than Jeremy holding on to anything that can free him?

It doesn't prove he is guilty but the log was available at the trial - it wasn't hidden so it's not the big discovery that the OS are leading people to believe.

[gringo]

I believe Jeremy will hang on to anything. But this alleged phone call is not important in either proving Jeremy´s guilt or innosence, is it? What can be proven by this other than Jeremy holding on to anything that can free him?e

It is important because if it is proved that there was a call from Neville then Jeremy is innocent.
   The logs don't prove anything one way or the other but there are discrepancies which deserve better than the explanations thus far offered. As is usual in this case the police refuse to release evidence which would assist in clearing the matter up (in this instance releasing the original logs for esda testing).
    Despite EP's refusal to assist in establishing the truth we are meant to believe their excuses which involve more "mistakes" and "wrong timings" than is feasible.
    When only one side don't want all of the evidence out in the open it is fair to assume that it is they who have most to fear from the truth.

[Alias]

When only one side don't want all of the evidence out in the open it is fair to assume that it is they who have most to fear from the truth.

What a good sentence.

[JackiePreece]

Thank you Gringo and Alias you are correct and let's not forget the Guildford Four and the hidden file

Unfortunately Caroline thinks she knows a lot more than experts that have studied the case


Ewen ?

[JackiePreece]

The police hide things because they can!!

It's just a matter of time in this case