Surely The Timings Are Incorrect?

[Reader]

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.

The exert doesn't deal with what the defence knew originally, as compared with what came to light in 2004. From Pc West's evidence at the trial, the defence knew the nature of the C1 log at the very least, and they knew that it gave Sheila's age as 27. If the defence had seen Bonnett's log at the time of the trial, they would immediately have noticed the two most obvious discrepancies: (1) Sheila's age is given differently, and (2) CA07 is logged as despatched at 03:35, a minute before the time that Pc West logged and mentioned in evidence. If the defence had not seen it already, they would have requested any statement that Bonnett gave, and discovered that Bonnett claimed to have despatched car CA07, whereas Pc West clearly stated at trial that he had contacted Witham to have that car despatched. Because it was clearly known at the trial that Pc West's reference to 03:36 seemed to be incorrect, it is extremely unlikely that the defence had seen the document (Bonnett's log) that showed 03:26. As to the  note "Message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber..." on Bonnett's log, this has been talked about a lot since 2004, but show me any document that refers to it prior to 2004.

[jon]

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.

If it was available at trial . how come EP went to court to prevent it being released ?
Surely they would have simply said ' it was available at trial ' ?
Why would Edmund Lawson QC have no recollection of it at trial ?
Can you put up both log's up here please , also the letter from Lawson ?

[jon]

Caroline this is good read for you , fitted up , when a crime never even happened .

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1991/dec/12/pc-tony-salt

[No-Bits]

Exhibit 29.

[Reader]

Are those dates (13.9.86 and 9.8.86) on Pc West's statements (exhibits 30 and 31) incorrect? Shouldn't the year be 85?

In any case, have these statements been posted anywhere? I would like to read them.

[susan]

Alias if the police did hide evidence it was not to cover up Jeremy Bamber's innocence but their own mistakes as they did make a pigs ear of the investigation just my opinion of course I don't profess to be an expert.

[No-Bits]

Are those dates (13.9.86 and 9.8.86) on Pc West's statements (exhibits 30 and 31) incorrect? Shouldn't the year be 85?

In any case, have these statements been posted anywhere? I would like to read them.

They may be other statements taken in 1986 whilst preparing for the trial.

In any case, they are not available in the public domain.

[Reader]

Why would EP go to court to prevent producing a phone log , which as far as they and you are concerned , there is nothing to hide?

To clarify, I think Essex Police claimed they couldn't find the original first pages of Pc West's C1 log and Bonnett's communications log, but various photocopies, not all the same, were supplied. EP had to be taken to court to obtain further logging by Bonnett, but even that seems to be incomplete. Regarding Pc West's log, it seems likely that Pc West was using a multipart pad, so that there would be several "originals", one of which would be the "top copy". These parts could have been separated early on so that various officers could read them. These parts seem then to have been altered to correct minor errors. That may help explain why there have been photocopies of the C1 log that differ slightly from each other.

[jon]

To clarify, I think Essex Police claimed they couldn't find the original first pages of Pc West's C1 log and Bonnett's communications log, but various photocopies, not all the same, were supplied. EP had to be taken to court to obtain further logging by Bonnett, but even that seems to be incomplete. Regarding Pc West's log, it seems likely that Pc West was using a multipart pad, so that there would be several "originals", one of which would be the "top copy". These parts could have been separated early on so that various officers could read them. These parts seem then to have been altered to correct minor errors. That may help explain why there have been photocopies of the C1 log that differ slightly from each other.

Thank's for the explanation . Do you have a link to any parts , that seem to be altered ?

[mike tesko]

First phone log timed at 3.26am, bears heading at start of message - "DAUGHTER HAS GONE BERSERK", let us not overlook the fact that when Jeremy made his call timed at 3.36am, that he never used such a phrase, or such a collection of words, neither did he say that Sheila was his daughter, nor did he ever claim that Sheila had got one of his guns (how many guns which were at the farm actually belong to Jeremy). Additionally, the ages mentioned in both logs are different...

What can be shown, is that in phone log 3.26am, there is added on at the end of the main body of information, that the "son had contacted CD with a message", which is consistent with Jeremy having made his call at 3.36am, information which was relayed to the author of the earlier message (3.26am), and duly added on at the conclusion of Ralphs message, for the purpose of continuity. Sheila was not Jeremys daughter, Jeremy did not own the guns kept at whf, Jeremy did not say that his daughter had gone berserk, Jeremy gave a different age for his sister in his phone call (3.36am)...

The entire contents of phone log 3.26am, could not possible relate solely to what Jeremy told the police, there are far too many inconsistencies, contradictions and things which simply do not stack up...

There were clearly two different telephone calls made to the police, one from the scene (whf), and the other from Jeremys cottage - with this in mind, and taking into account the suggestion that there was some sort of time abberration to explain why the timing of one of these calls was recorded 10 minutes later than it actually was made, then how could Jeremy have been at the scene, and back at his cottage, at one and the same time?

Impossible!!!

[Reader]

They may be other statements taken in 1986 whilst preparing for the trial.

That's impossible, as Mr Rivlin referred to Pc West's statement of 13th September "last year", i.e., 1985, when cross-examining Pc West, and Pc West read out parts of that statement and agreed that he wrote it a month after the event. He also mentioned that he had previously made a shorter statement on 9th August.

Perhaps mike tesko has copies of Pc West's statements. I would like to read them.

[No-Bits]

That's impossible, as Mr Rivlin referred to Pc West's statement of 13th September "last year", i.e., 1985, when cross-examining Pc West, and Pc West read out parts of that statement and agreed that he wrote it a month after the event. He also mentioned that he had previously made a shorter statement on 9th August.

Perhaps mike tesko has copies of Pc West's statements. I would like to read them.

Yes you are probably right on that.

[Caroline]

The exert doesn't deal with what the defence knew originally, as compared with what came to light in 2004. From Pc West's evidence at the trial, the defence knew the nature of the C1 log at the very least, and they knew that it gave Sheila's age as 27. If the defence had seen Bonnett's log at the time of the trial, they would immediately have noticed the two most obvious discrepancies: (1) Sheila's age is given differently, and (2) CA07 is logged as despatched at 03:35, a minute before the time that Pc West logged and mentioned in evidence. If the defence had not seen it already, they would have requested any statement that Bonnett gave, and discovered that Bonnett claimed to have despatched car CA07, whereas Pc West clearly stated at trial that he had contacted Witham to have that car despatched. Because it was clearly known at the trial that Pc West's reference to 03:36 seemed to be incorrect, it is extremely unlikely that the defence had seen the document (Bonnett's log) that showed 03:26. As to the  note "Message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber..." on Bonnett's log, this has been talked about a lot since 2004, but show me any document that refers to it prior to 2004.

I really don't have a clue what your point is? I have produced evidence from Jeremy's own campaign site that states clearly that Bonnet's log was shown to the jury, so the defence must have seen it. If you don't want to accept that, then take it up with the campaign but I am sure they would know what documents were or weren't shown to the jury.

[Caroline]

To clarify, I think Essex Police claimed they couldn't find the original first pages of Pc West's C1 log and Bonnett's communications log, but various photocopies, not all the same, were supplied. EP had to be taken to court to obtain further logging by Bonnett, but even that seems to be incomplete. Regarding Pc West's log, it seems likely that Pc West was using a multipart pad, so that there would be several "originals", one of which would be the "top copy". These parts could have been separated early on so that various officers could read them. These parts seem then to have been altered to correct minor errors. That may help explain why there have been photocopies of the C1 log that differ slightly from each other.

I have copies of these logs and they are just minor spelling errors, the allegation was that the time had been altered on West's log.

[jon]

I have copies of these logs and they are just minor spelling errors, the allegation was that the time had been altered on West's log.

Can you post them please ?