A Call To Essex Police From Neville? - The poll

[scipio_usmc]

The main reason why there are a number of people who are knowledgeable about the case, is due to the documents released by those trying to convince people that Jeremy is innocent.
It is somewhat ironic that such a large proportion of those who have joined this forum, have determined that Jeremy is actually guilty.

There are 2 things at play.

1) The evidence is squarely against Jeremy, that is why he is where he is. 

2) His advocates here do a very poor job on his behalf.  For the most part they pick ridiculous arguments instead of sticking with the strongest things they could credibly maintain and largely say he was not convicted on the basis of any evidence thus fail to address let alone try to refute the evidence that convicted him.  Pretending Nevill phoned police himself or that someone inside the house was speaking to police are nonsense claims that just harm the credibility of those making the claims.  Likewise various distortions don't help.  You frame the facts in the best light possible for your side you don't distort the facts to pretend they are favorabel because when caught distorting again it reflects very poorly and harms the person you are being an advocate for.  SOmetimes they are their own worst enemy and Jeremy's as well.

   

[lookout]

One has to get to grips with the archaic telephone system which was in place at the time. You have to put our present,modern technology behind you to appreciate how ancient the old system was. Don't even think about it when you're trying to fathom out what happened all those years ago,it was abysmal.
 
We've come a long way since then where there's no messing about,waiting to be connected ( via a voice ) it's all easy-peasy press-button. We know who's called,we also know who's ringing when the phone goes. Numbers are easily traced,etc etc.
It WASN'T a bit like that in the early to mid 80's.

[Caroline]

A car was sent out and it arrived minutes before the car after Jeremys' call.
To the idiot who used that cream phone in the kitchen,after 7.30am,it would have cancelled out any previous call which would have been Nevilles',or possibly even Sheila,we don't know. Sometimes,some officers haven't got the sense they were born with.

The car (CA07) was sent after West passed on Jeremy's message to Bonnet - the message from Jeremy, not Neville. The cream phone in the kitchen didn't store numbers, 'the idiot' didn't make any difference.

[Alias]

What is the purpose of a poll about this?
 Other than a confirmation  you are RIGHT? What does it mean though? Not so much.

[curiousessex]

Please do not get excited because the 'Yes' vote has appeared to increase by 1 vote to new total of 3 votes.

I actually meant to vote 'No'.

However, I cannot see how to retract and change my vote as cast to 'No'.

As such, the 'No' votes should currently total 10 and the 'Yes' votes should total 2.

One vote either way 10 to 2 (5 to 1) as opposed to 9 to 3 (3 to 1) is a very big difference...... it almost doubles the weighting in one direction.

How ironic 10 to 2 was the majority verdict of the jury in Jeremy's original trial.

In this regard it should be pointed out the Judge instructed the court to give the benefit of the doubt in terms the time of Jeremy's call to the police (3.26 am or 3.36 am) in the favour of the defence.

It can also be demonstrated the call log of what is now being portrayed by some as an alleged call from Nevill to the police was available and known about at the time of the original trial. (3.26 am or 3.36 am as detailed above - where else do the 3.26 or 3.36 timings come from). Additionally, there is a copy of this call log which actually has a Chelmsford Court label on it. This document was known about and available at the time of the original trial.

As such the call log which is being used as a 'proof' of an alleged call from Nevill to the police is nothing more than a further reference to Jeremy's one and only call to the police.

In any event even if the log did refer to an alleged call from Nevill to the police it is now useless in terms of Jeremy seeking an MOJ via the CCRC because the document, as it exists, cannot be used as any part of a new CCRC submission because it is not new evidence.

Apologies for any confusion regarding the vote.

[nugnug]

i think this alleged call is a bit of a distraction anyway its nevile alleged call to jeremy that clinchces it ether way.

[Caroline]

What is the purpose of a poll about this?
 Other than a confirmation  you are RIGHT? What does it mean though? Not so much.

You could ask that about any poll and who likes to be wrong?

[scipio_usmc]

What is the purpose of a poll about this?
 Other than a confirmation  you are RIGHT? What does it mean though? Not so much.

The poll is to try to get those who assert this on record and to try to get them to explain why they believe it.  There are 3 yes votes yet no rational explanation set forth for such position.  It seems people don't really feel they need a rational basis for their positions which alone is enough to say they should be disregarded.

[No-Bits]

The poll is to try to get those who assert this on record and to try to get them to explain why they believe it.  There are 3 yes votes yet no rational explanation set forth for such position.  It seems people don't really feel they need a rational basis for their positions which alone is enough to say they should be disregarded.

One was an error and should have been a No vote (see CuriousEssex's post above).

i.e. there are only 2 YES votes.

[nugnug]

its a 3 way vote how do you count the undecideds.

[scipio_usmc]

One was an error and should have been a No vote (see CuriousEssex's post above).

i.e. there are only 2 YES votes.

Quite correct I was sloppy and forgot to deduct his.  I should say I am a bit surprised that there are people unsure.  I don't know how one can be undecided on this issue.  It is rather clear cut.   

[scipio_usmc]

its a 3 way vote how do you count the undecideds.

Fickle?  To lazy to look at all the evidence so as to make a decision?  Don't care enough about it to become informed and be able to make an informed judgment?   

Unless those who voted that way tell us why they did so we don't have a basis to know what is the case.   

[Reader]

It can also be demonstrated the call log of what is now being portrayed by some as an alleged call from Nevill to the police was available and known about at the time of the original trial. (3.26 am or 3.36 am as detailed above - where else do the 3.26 or 3.36 timings come from).

The time 3:36 is in Pc West's log, the time 3:26 is in Jeremy's interview, and the time 3:35 is in Pc Saxby's statement. Despite the court label on Bonnett's log, there are no specific references to the log's content until much later (2004?). It's very unlikely that Mr Rivlin had seen it, as he would have noticed that it commences without mentioning Jeremy and gives Sheila's age as 26. Curiously, Bonnett's COLP statement gives virtually no details of what Pc West said to him. There are no references to Bonnett's log in the 2002 appeal judgement.

[JackiePreece]

One was an error and should have been a No vote (see CuriousEssex's post above).

i.e. there are only 2 YES votes.

I thought there would be thousands of voters ?

[Caroline]

I thought there would be thousands of voters ?

Why would there be thousands of voters when there aren't thousands of members?