A Call To Essex Police From Neville? - The poll

[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 ?

Nobody knew about this either.

[Caroline]

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.

So am I Grahame but what you're failing to understand is, that log was shown to the jury, Bamber already knew about it - I don't think it's a genuine mistake at all. How can it be if he already knew about it?

[Caroline]

Before there is anymore confusion - this is the log that the jury saw

[Jane]

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.

So now we must imagine that if WE are the convicted person who is in prison and someone hands US information that could throw doubt on our conviction, wouldn't we grab the information with both hands and run with it? Of COURSE we would. Would it make any difference if we were innocent and wrongly convicted or guilty but pleading an MOJ?  I suspect it wouldn't.

[maggie]

So now we must imagine that if WE are the convicted person who is in prison and someone hands US information that could throw doubt on our conviction, wouldn't we grab the information with both hands and run with it? Of COURSE we would. Would it make any difference if we were innocent and wrongly convicted or guilty but pleading an MOJ?  I suspect it wouldn't.

I agree April, if JB saw it as a chance guilty or innocent it would surely be worth a shot imo.   It doesn't prove anything, either way.

[susan]

april quite right when Jeremy Bamber received this infomation he would cease on it with both hands thinking it may help prove his innocence  but then again  if he is guilty he would know that a call did not exist if you get my meaning.  Am I picking you up right on this point or not.

[Caroline]

I agree April, if JB saw it as a chance guilty or innocent it would surely be worth a shot imo.   It doesn't prove anything, either way.

The point is that people are under an illusion that it was the Neville log that was recently rediscovered but it wasn't, it was the one written by West with Jeremy's details. However, the CT have done nothing to stop this incorrect assumption and news papers like the Daily Mail have repeated the mistake. It's important because when you think it was the Neville log that was discovered in a file, it makes the whole thing sound more conspiratorial when in fact, this is just another myth.

[Mr. Gee]

I agree April, if JB saw it as a chance guilty or innocent it would surely be worth a shot imo.   It doesn't prove anything, either way.

Thank you Maggie. That was the exact point I was trying to make. The second log was discovered and he mistakenly thought that it indicated that his father phoned the police. He wasn't being dishonest. But my point I feel has not been understood? In other words Bamber honestly thought he was in with a chance with new evidence and was not deliberately trying to mislead people. In fact his legal team advised him not to use it, but he didn't listen. That unfortunately is what he does. He seems to dig holes for himself and doesn't listen very well to advice given by others who have better knowledge of legal matters than he.

[Mr. Gee]

The point is that people are under an illusion that it was the Neville log that was recently rediscovered but it wasn't, it was the one written by West with Jeremy's details. However, the CT have done nothing to stop this incorrect assumption and news papers like the Daily Mail have repeated the mistake. It's important because when you think it was the Neville log that was discovered in a file, it makes the whole thing sound more conspiratorial when in fact, this is just another myth.

Unfortunately for Bamber the CT can be criticised for such innacurate information.

[susan]

Mr. Gee he was being dishonest if he is guilty but guess he is the only one who can answer that so I will not judge him.

[Jane]

april quite right when Jeremy Bamber received this infomation he would cease on it with both hands thinking it may help prove his innocence  but then again  if he is guilty he would know that a call did not exist if you get my meaning.  Am I picking you up right on this point or not.

I guess that's more or less IT, Susan. I don't think Jeremy did ANYTHING that, under his circumstances, WE wouldn't have done either. His innocence/guilt, only HE knows 100% -and is an entirely separate issue- so it had to be worth a shot.

[maggie]

The point is that people are under an illusion that it was the Neville log that was recently rediscovered but it wasn't, it was the one written by West with Jeremy's details. However, the CT have done nothing to stop this incorrect assumption and news papers like the Daily Mail have repeated the mistake. It's important because when you think it was the Neville log that was discovered in a file, it makes the whole thing sound more conspiratorial when in fact, this is just another myth.

Yes I understand all of that, however I was agreeing with April that if this was offered for Jeremy Bamber to make use of he would have done whether guilty or innocent imo which renders it useless as a debating point.
I accept your point about the CT misleading but not convinced JB has much control of what is posted on there.

[Mr. Gee]

Mr. Gee he was being dishonest if he is guilty but guess he is the only one who can answer that so I will not judge him.

What you say is of course blatently obvious. But the point I was making is that his reaction to the finding of the second log is an indication that he was being honest. And unfortunately there are those who will judge him dishonest because of it.

[Jane]

Thank you Maggie. That was the exact point I was trying to make. The second log was discovered and he mistakenly thought that it indicated that his father phoned the police. He wasn't being dishonest. But my point I feel has not been understood? In other words Bamber honestly thought he was in with a chance with new evidence and was not deliberately trying to mislead people. In fact his legal team advised him not to use it, but he didn't listen. That unfortunately is what he does. He seems to dig holes for himself and doesn't listen very well to advice given by others who have better knowledge of legal matters than he.

However, if the whole story about his father's call to him is fictitious he would have known there was no call made to the police -other than his own- but innocent or guilty it was still worth a shot.

[Caroline]

Yes I understand all of that, however I was agreeing with April that if this was offered for Jeremy Bamber to make use of he would have done whether guilty or innocent imo which renders it useless as a debating point.
I accept your point about the CT misleading but not convinced JB has much control of what is posted on there.

Given that some people still believe the call happened and that it is made much of on the OS, I think it is very much worthy of debate.