A Call To Essex Police From Neville? - The poll

[nugnug]

i can see why jeremy and his team would think there was a call considering what was writtan in the logs.


when a gun gets changed to my gun i could see why they would think nevile must of made a call.

[Jane]

Yes but it is one thing to highlight mistakes, but quite another to turn those mistakes into an opportunity for abuse against that person. I'm talking about Bamber of course, although there are some on here that do not have the capacity to forget or forgive.

I don't believe that particular behaviour to be the prerogative of one side over the other OR this case in particular. It's a tactic used across the board when people are passionate about "their" cause.

[Caroline]

Yes but it is one thing to highlight mistakes, but quite another to turn those mistakes into an opportunity for abuse against that person. I'm talking about Bamber of course, although there are some on here that do not have the capacity to forget or forgive.

You've lost me now - I can only talk about myself and I don't abuse anyone. I have posted things I know, things I've worked out and things I believe may have happened - only to be met with a barrage of abuse, sarcasm and downright rudeness from people I didn't think would turn on me with such venom. However, they aren't people I know or have any real knowledge of so I'm not too concerned. People can agree, disagree or just be rude but it won't alter my opinion.

Personally, I have no feelings towards Bamber but I can understand those who believe he's guilty - not liking him very much, someone they believe killed 5 people including two little boys won't be making many people's Christmas card list.

[Caroline]

i can see why jeremy and his team would think there was a call considering what was writtan in the logs.


when a gun gets changed to my gun i could see why they would think nevile must of made a call.

I think both Scipio and I have done all we can to highlight the implausibility of Neville's call - if people STILL wish to cling onto it, that's up to them. The jury saw the 'Neville' log and it has been explained but because most people think (incorrectly) that this log was only recently discovered - a whole conspiracy has been  engineered around it.  And no one from the CT have done anything to correct the myth - I find this dishonest at the worst  and careless at the least. 

[Mr. Gee]

You've lost me now - I can only talk about myself and I don't abuse anyone. I have posted things I know, things I've worked out and things I believe may have happened - only to be met with a barrage of abuse, sarcasm and downright rudeness from people I didn't think would turn on me with such venom. However, they aren't people I know or have any real knowledge of so I'm not too concerned. People can agree, disagree or just be rude but it won't alter my opinion.

Personally, I have no feelings towards Bamber but I can understand those who believe he's guilty - not liking him very much, someone they believe killed 5 people including two little boys won't be making many people's Christmas card list.

Actually I fear that you don't really know anything about being on the receiving end of abuse caroline. But having said that you have completely missed the point I was making, perhaps intentionally or unintentionally I don't know? I was not referring to you in my post by the way. So don't think that everything I say is directed at you.

[nugnug]

I think both Scipio and I have done all we can to highlight the implausibility of Neville's call - if people STILL wish to cling onto it, that's up to them. The jury saw the 'Neville' log and it has been explained but because most people think (incorrectly) that this log was only recently discovered - a whole conspiracy has been  engineered around it.  And no one from the CT have done anything to correct the myth - I find this dishonest at the worst  and careless at the least.

i said i can see why they thought it from the wording that doesnt mean it happend but i can see why they thought it did.

[lookout]

 I'd rather dwell on the fact that exhibit 29 as told to the defence at the trial,was only a single page document,but as it turned out,it was in fact a 24 page summary of radio communications which EP refused to hand over. So in 2004,the matter was taken to the trial judge and the prosecution counsel asking if either had known of its existence. Neither had !
Once the defence looked at the 24 page document,they noticed that the first two pages had not only been re-written,but also edited as well,and according to police witnesses,several messages that had been made,were left out.
However,when the defence asked for the original copies to be electronically tested,EP refused,and after a few more requests,they have still refused.

Can anyone give a reason why EP would refuse such a simple and straightforward request as an analysis ?

[Caroline]

Actually I fear that you don't really know anything about being on the receiving end of abuse caroline. But having said that you have completely missed the point I was making, perhaps intentionally or unintentionally I don't know? I was not referring to you in my post by the way. So don't think that everything I say is directed at you.

Well, on that we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm really not sure (genuinely) what point you are trying to make and I didn't think you were referring to me. Perhaps it's best to just leave stuff in the past and move on.

[No-Bits]

Well, on that we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm really not sure (genuinely) what point you are trying to make and I didn't think you were referring to me. Perhaps it's best to just leave stuff in the past and move on.

As I said, things tend to repeat themselves. 

[lookout]

I'd rather dwell on the fact that exhibit 29 as told to the defence at the trial,was only a single page document,but as it turned out,it was in fact a 24 page summary of radio communications which EP refused to hand over. So in 2004,the matter was taken to the trial judge and the prosecution counsel asking if either had known of its existence. Neither had !
Once the defence looked at the 24 page document,they noticed that the first two pages had not only been re-written,but also edited as well,and according to police witnesses,several messages that had been made,were left out.
However,when the defence asked for the original copies to be electronically tested,EP refused,and after a few more requests,they have still refused.

Can anyone give a reason why EP would refuse such a simple and straightforward request as an analysis ?

[Mr. Gee]

Well, on that we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm really not sure (genuinely) what point you are trying to make and I didn't think you were referring to me. Perhaps it's best to just leave stuff in the past and move on.

Simple I haven't left the thread at all I am talking about the supposed second telephone log that Bamber believed to indicate that Nevill made a call to police. I am making the point that it was a genuine mistake on his part. Do you not understand my words? I believe it was a genuine mistake on his part. But there are those who take the opportunity to make it look as if he was lying about it. That is all I am saying. Why do you think I am trying to accuse you of anything? The point I am making is simple enough to understand.

[John]

Clearly the 'No's' have it by a factor of 2:1.  There was no telephone call from Nevill to the police or anyone else, pure fiction.

[Jane]

Simple I haven't left the thread at all I am talking about the supposed second telephone log that Bamber believed to indicate that Nevill made a call to police. I am making the point that it was a genuine mistake on his part. Do you not understand my words? I believe it was a genuine mistake on his part. But there are those who take the opportunity to make it look as if he was lying about it. That is all I am saying. Why do you think I am trying to accuse you of anything? The point I am making is simple enough to understand.

As Jeremy didn't pull that information out of the ether, but had it imparted to him quite late into his prison term, the "mistake" was never his anyway. I certainly don't recall that he ever said his father had told him he'd called the police and UNLESS he had, Jeremy wouldn't have had any way of knowing. IF such a call had occurred, I imagine that the police would have told him at the time, if only to stop him repeating information they already had.

[nugnug]

the confusion is perfectly understandable if you look at the notes.

[Mr. Gee]

As Jeremy didn't pull that information out of the ether, but had it imparted to him quite late into his prison term, the "mistake" was never his anyway. I certainly don't recall that he ever said his father had told him he'd called the police and UNLESS he had, Jeremy wouldn't have had any way of knowing. IF such a call had occurred, I imagine that the police would have told him at the time, if only to stop him repeating information they already had.

That is correct. Bamber never mentioned it in his statement or in court. He didn't know about "another telephone log". As you rightly observe, the information was imparted to him long into his prison term. The mistake was not his as you correctly have stated, but the police make errors in the passing on of the logs from one person to another. The police must receive criticism for that.
But the mistake Bamber made was to immediately grab it as proof that his father had phoned the police.
The point that I am emphasising is that his was aq genuine mistake and the indication that it was a genuine mistake on his part is the very fact that it is still a controversial subject to this day and indeed is the subject of this very thread.
It is controversial because of the ambiguous nature of the wording and the wording is ambiguous otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it now.
Therefore Bamber was genuinly mistaken about it indicating a phone call from his father to the police. In other words it was not his intention to mislead anyone about it. Indeed it was he who was misled.