Surely The Timings Are Incorrect?

[Alias]

Thanks Susan    I have terrible toothache at the moment and a long wait for my dentist appointment so I am probably just grouchy.   

Be better soon!

[Jane]

You're the second person from here to suggest that to me, so I think I need to! 

But be warned. Less is definitely more!!!!!

[Caroline]

But be warned. Less is definitely more!!!!!

That's true and don't put it on a plastic or polished surface!! 

[Reader]

As Caroline points out Bonnett's log was used at trial.

Bonnett's log was not mentioned at trial. Had the defence seen it at or before trial, they would have questioned it. As there is a copy of it with an exhibit label attached, it's possible that the defence had been given it, but overlooked it. There is no proof that a copy of it was in the jury bundle.

[scipio_usmc]

Bonnett's log was not mentioned at trial. Had the defence seen it at or before trial, they would have questioned it. As there is a copy of it with an exhibit label attached, it's possible that the defence had been given it, but overlooked it. There is no proof that a copy of it was in the jury bundle.

Both sides have access to the trial exhibits. Just like they know all potential witnesses that each side can call and a summary of what the testimony would be about..  There is no way to say the defense did not have the opportunity to reveiw the exhibits they have every right to do so in advance.  It makes no difference if either side ends up not claling attention to an exhibit before the jury or having a witness end up testifying both sides know anyway what those exhibits were and the potential witnesses.

There is no way at all to pretend that the log was hidden from the defense. The defense surely looked at it but relaized there is nothing about it that oculd be used to support the notion that Nevill made a call.  Indeed all those who suggest it proves such insist it was doctored to reflect the log is recounting Jeremy's allegations about what Nevill said to him though it originally was coming directly from Nevill.

Far from the trial team having information hidden from them, it is the case of people with wild imaginations who are desperately trying to find a way to pretend Jeremy is innocent making wild allegations without any supporting evidence.

[Reader]

I didn't suggest that Bennett's log was hidden from the defence. As the defence knew there was a dispute over the time of Jeremy's call to Pc West, and questioned Pc West about various aspects of his log, I am sure they would have wanted to question Bonnett about his log had they seen it. As the defence were given a large number of documents, one can't assume that they read all of them.

[scipio_usmc]

I didn't suggest that Bennett's log was hidden from the defence. As the defence knew there was a dispute over the time of Jeremy's call to Pc West, and questioned Pc West about various aspects of his log, I am sure they would have wanted to question Bonnett about his log had they seen it. As the defence were given a large number of documents, one can't assume that they read all of them.

You look at the trial exhibits and the potential witnesses very carefully. Only someone who has no time to put into a case and thus has no business trying it would not carefully look at the exhibits. You want to know them precisely so you know how to blunt anything the other side will be saying.  So even if they were too lazy to look at the logs when they were disclosed with boxes of other documents you look over every exhibit.

The fact of the matter is that the exhibit is not noteworthy. There would not be any basis to suggest at trial that it proved Nevill had phoned police himself.  It described a call that it purported came from West.  The people with the conspiracy claims are asserting it was doctored and especially faulting the defense for not figuring out it was doctored.

They have no proof it was doctored though which is a pretty huge problem for them. 

[Reader]

They should have looked over everything, but mistakes can happen. I am not suggesting that Bonnett's log is absolute proof that Nevill called Pc West, just that the defence would have wanted to question Bonnett about his log if they had seen it.

[mike tesko]

The defence during trial did not see sight of the two contradictory phone log contents, other wise all hell would have broke loose. We should not lose sight of the fact that a collection of words interpreted differently by one party or another can have lifeyhreatoning consequences, for some. The case of Derek Bentley springs to mind, where the prosecution allegged that when Bentley called out to an accomplice, "let him have it", it meant shoot the policeman, and the jury bought into that interpretation, and found Bentley guilty, and he was subsequently hanged, but pardened many years later. In the instant case, the discrepancies and inconsistencies between one log and the other, are too serious to ignore, and I do not think there is any question that had the defence got sight of the contents of both phone logs during the trial, the defence would have relished the opportunity to discredit prosecution claims that the father would not have called up the son in the middle of the night, he wouldcall the police instead, which the defence would have been able tostrongly suggest otherwise...

[scipio_usmc]

The defence during trial did not see sight of the two contradictory phone log contents, other wise all hell would have broke loose. We should not lose sight of the fact that a collection of words interpreted differently by one party or another can have lifeyhreatoning consequences, for some. The case of Derek Bentley springs to mind, where the prosecution allegged that when Bentley called out to an accomplice, "let him have it", it meant shoot the policeman, and the jury bought into that interpretation, and found Bentley guilty, and he was subsequently hanged, but pardened many years later. In the instant case, the discrepancies and inconsistencies between one log and the other, are too serious to ignore, and I do not think there is any question that had the defence got sight of the contents of both phone logs during the trial, the defence would have relished the opportunity to discredit prosecution claims that the father would not have called up the son in the middle of the night, he wouldcall the police instead, which the defence would have been able tostrongly suggest otherwise...

The logs are not contradictory, nor do they suggest Nevill phoned police himself.  Just liek the defense lawyers can't do anything with them now to help Jeremy the trial lawyers could not have done anything with them during the trial. 

You can pretend the logs prove Jeremy made a phone call all you like. it won't change the fact that they don't do such.  You swore up and down the logs were altered to conceal Nevill made a call which by deifnition means as they currently exist they do not reveal such.

You can't prove they were altered and don't even have a guess as to who altered them and when let alone proof.  Thus not even the appeal lawyers can do anything with this let alone the trial lawyers.

What could they have argued at trial? 

 

[Reader]

Are you okay, scipio_usmc? You just stated "You can pretend the logs prove Jeremy made a phone call all you like. it won't change the fact that they don't do such." That's nonsense. We all agree that Jeremy made a telephone call; it's whether Nevill called the police as well that is being debated. The defence didn't need to prove Jeremy innocent. They would have been delighted to cause the jury to have some doubt, and raising questions about Bonnett's log would clearly have been a way to do that if they'd seen the log and recalled what it said.

[Caroline]

Are you okay, scipio_usmc? You just stated "You can pretend the logs prove Jeremy made a phone call all you like. it won't change the fact that they don't do such." That's nonsense. We all agree that Jeremy made a telephone call; it's whether Nevill called the police as well that is being debated. The defence didn't need to prove Jeremy innocent. They would have been delighted to cause the jury to have some doubt, and raising questions about Bonnett's log would clearly have been a way to do that if they'd seen the log and recalled what it said.

Obviously Scipio made a mistake (we all do from time to time) and meant 'Neville' oh and |Bonnett's log WAS made available to the jury - the OS says so!! But I'm sure if you contact the campaign team, they will clarify that for you.

[scipio_usmc]

Are you okay, scipio_usmc? You just stated "You can pretend the logs prove Jeremy made a phone call all you like. it won't change the fact that they don't do such." That's nonsense. We all agree that Jeremy made a telephone call; it's whether Nevill called the police as well that is being debated. The defence didn't need to prove Jeremy innocent. They would have been delighted to cause the jury to have some doubt, and raising questions about Bonnett's log would clearly have been a way to do that if they'd seen the log and recalled what it said.

Oh gee I typed Jeremy instead of Nevill. Given the context anyone should be able to figure that out.

What doubt is raised by the logs?  They are not contradictory and do not in any way suggest a call fro Nevill was made.  Those insisting the logs prove a call from Nevill was made insist the logs were doctored.  Just reading the logs doesn't present any suggestion of a call from Nevill.  It would not have been permissible to argue that the log reflects a call from Nevill and was doctored they would have to call Bonnett to the stand and try getting him to admi he received a call from nevill and when he denied such they are stuck with his denial.

Far from establishing any doubt it just would make the defense look foolish much like those on this board making the argument look foolish. 

[Reader]

What doubt is raised by the logs? They are not contradictory and do not in any way suggest a call from Nevill was made.

They give Sheila's age differently and Bonnett's log gives Nevill's information as though it had been passed directly to Pc West rather than via Jeremy - apart from the note about the other weapons at WHF, it makes no mention of Jeremy, thereby raising the possibility that Nevill had called Pc West.

Just reading the logs doesn't present any suggestion of a call from Nevill.

As explained above, the logs do suggest a call from Nevill to Pc West.

. . . they would have to call Bonnett to the stand

The defence team evidently hadn't read Bonnett's log. They weren't thorough enough. They should also have found out who the officer at Witham was that Pc West said he contacted, but they didn't. They just accepted what Pc West said and did very little to verify it.

[Caroline]

They give Sheila's age differently and Bonnett's log gives Nevill's information as though it had been passed directly to Pc West rather than via Jeremy - apart from the note about the other weapons at WHF, it makes no mention of Jeremy, thereby raising the possibility that Nevill had called Pc West.

But they both refer to Sheila as 'Bamber' are you trying to say that BOTH Neville and Jeremy made the same mistake? Bonnett either heard the age incorrectly or West made a mistake - simples! Bonnett wrote the log (or West passed it on) as if it was Neville who called because it was ONLY his details that were required - he was the victim, not Jeremy. It was Neville's phone number and address they were interested in

As explained above, the logs do suggest a call from Nevill to Pc West.

As explained above, they don't.

The defence team evidently hadn't read Bonnett's log. They weren't thorough enough. They should also have found out who the officer at Witham was that Pc West said he contacted, but they didn't. They just accepted what Pc West said and did very little to verify it.

Bonnett's log was show to the jury, you're just in denial on that point. The OS states clearly that which log the jury saw. Did the defense team have their eyes shut? You seem to be blocking your eyes and ears to what actually happened to make it fit your conspiracy theory.