A Call To Essex Police From Neville? - The poll

[Adam]

Or someone else pointed it out to him.

Very possible.

[Mr. Gee]

Whatever happened I for one would still like to see some kind of documentation to confirm that the two telephone logs were discussed in court. Scipio got the information from somewhere. So I would like to know where, as I have not heard this before?

[Adam]

Whatever happened I for one would still like to see some kind of documentation to confirm that the two telephone logs were discussed in court. Scipio got the information from somewhere. So I would like to know where, as I have not heard this before?

Agree with that.

[lookout]

 Yes,it would appear that he " knows " rather a lot,but whether or not it's authentic,it's up to him ?

[Caroline]

Whatever happened I for one would still like to see some kind of documentation to confirm that the two telephone logs were discussed in court. Scipio got the information from somewhere. So I would like to know where, as I have not heard this before?

It's on Bambers website!

[Jane]

Very possible.

Well, let's look at it more closely, Adam. It wasn't a new document It must have been looked at and pored over dozens of times. Maybe it was a new member of the team who looked at it with a fresh view. It makes more sense than someone who knows the contents by heart suddenly finding new meaning in it.

[Caroline]

The only reason this seems new is that most people have been assuming (wrongly) that it was the log relating to Jeremy's details that the jury saw when in fact it was the log referring to Neville's.

The following is from Bambers OS

[Adam]

Well, let's look at it more closely, Adam. It wasn't a new document It must have been looked at and pored over dozens of times. Maybe it was a new member of the team who looked at it with a fresh view. It makes more sense than someone who knows the contents by heart suddenly finding new meaning in it.

Agree.  Bamber or someone close to him looked at the documents decades later. And somehow decided Neville called the police.

Neville calling the police was not discussed at trial. Unless someone can provide a source it was.

[lookout]

A very prejudiced argument I must say.
Weren't the logs different in that one said sister,the other daughter ? Also the mix-up in Sheilas' age ?

Between Bonnett and West,did either of them know what they were doing ? How did one know if a car had been sent to WHF if the other hadn't told him ?

[Jane]

The only reason this seems new is that most people have been assuming (wrongly) that it was the log relating to Jeremy's details that the jury saw when in fact it was the log referring to Neville's.

The following is from Bambers OS

Hmm. Easy to see how the confusion arose, isn't it?

[scipio_usmc]

Whatever happened I for one would still like to see some kind of documentation to confirm that the two telephone logs were discussed in court. Scipio got the information from somewhere. So I would like to know where, as I have not heard this before?

West's trial testimony as well as the exhibit files.

West's c1 log and Bonnet's log were both among exhibits that COULD be used at trial if desired.  Both sides gets a copy of such documents and sees them.  So that means the defense saw both logs.

The exhibit submitted for use as a trial exhibit was Bonnett's.  That was the one admitted into court as evidence that the jury was free to look at if desired.  The jury can examine any exhibits admitted into evidence. 

West's c1 log was used to refresh his memory.  You are allowed to allow witnesses to refresh their memory with notes.  So his was admitted into evidence in court only through testimony- he read from it.  It wasn't admitted formally as a document that the jury could have looked at like the Bonnett log was.   The jury had to listen to West's testimony to understand about such log.

Here is where on direct examination where the judge allows West to use the log to refresh his memory and shows him reading from it:



I didn't copy it all they discussed the log contents more but this illustrates my point.

On cross examination he was asked about the time difference and the question specifies 3:26.  Where did the defense lawyer get 3:26 from?  He got it from Bonnett's log that was admitted into evidence at trial.



So the notion that the trial defense did not know about both logs is ludicrous.

All that happened in many years later someone decided to make up the claim that the trial lawyers did not make up- that Bonnett's log reflected a call from Nevill to Bonnett.  Instead of admitting they made up something that the trial lawyers did not consider because it was meritless they created the cover story that the trial lawyers were unaware of Bonnett's log, which is nonsense, and that is why the trial team did not advance the claim.  They didn't want the truth to come out which is that it is meritless and that is why the trial lawyers never made the claim.

[Reader]

If Neville was already dead it's highly unlikely he'd have called the police.

If Caroline's premise that Jeremy killed Nevill is accepted, it follows trivially that we all know that Nevill didn't call the police, so Jeremy definitely isn't the ONLY one to know. In any case, Pc West knows.

If Caroline's premise that Jeremy killed Nevill isn't accepted, only Pc West knows for certain whether Nevill telephoned him or not.

Either way, your original conclusion that only Jeremy knows can't be right.

[Caroline]

If Caroline's premise that Jeremy killed Nevill is accepted, it follows trivially that we all know that Nevill didn't call the police, so Jeremy definitely isn't the ONLY one to know. In any case, Pc West knows.

If Caroline's premise that Jeremy killed Nevill isn't accepted, only Pc West knows for certain whether Nevill telephoned him or not.

Either way, your original conclusion that only Jeremy knows can't be right.

My premise  ? Sorry Reader but I think Jeremy might be in prison because he was convicted of killing Neville so the premise is isn't mine!

[John]

So the notion that the trial defense did not know about both logs is ludicrous.

All that happened in many years later someone decided to make up the claim that the trial lawyers did not make up- that Bonnett's log reflected a call from Nevill to Bonnett.  Instead of admitting they made up something that the trial lawyers did not consider because it was meritless they created the cover story that the trial lawyers were unaware of Bonnett's log, which is nonsense, and that is why the trial team did not advance the claim.  They didn't want the truth to come out which is that it is meritless and that is why the trial lawyers never made the claim.

Excellent post scipio.  Like so many arguments raised in this case over the last 29 years there is usually a sensible and measured response available for most of them, for the rest it is a case of grasping at straws.

As time goes by however the desperation is beginning to wane in favour of pained acceptance that Bamber is indeed guilty.

[Patti]

West's trial testimony as well as the exhibit files.

West's c1 log and Bonnet's log were both among exhibits that COULD be used at trial if desired.  Both sides gets a copy of such documents and sees them.  So that means the defense saw both logs.

The exhibit submitted for use as a trial exhibit was Bonnett's.  That was the one admitted into court as evidence that the jury was free to look at if desired.  The jury can examine any exhibits admitted into evidence. 

West's c1 log was used to refresh his memory.  You are allowed to allow witnesses to refresh their memory with notes.  So his was admitted into evidence in court only through testimony- he read from it.  It wasn't admitted formally as a document that the jury could have looked at like the Bonnett log was.   The jury had to listen to West's testimony to understand about such log.

Here is where on direct examination where the judge allows West to use the log to refresh his memory and shows him reading from it:



I didn't copy it all they discussed the log contents more but this illustrates my point.

On cross examination he was asked about the time difference and the question specifies 3:26.  Where did the defense lawyer get 3:26 from?  He got it from Bonnett's log that was admitted into evidence at trial.



So the notion that the trial defense did not know about both logs is ludicrous.

All that happened in many years later someone decided to make up the claim that the trial lawyers did not make up- that Bonnett's log reflected a call from Nevill to Bonnett.  Instead of admitting they made up something that the trial lawyers did not consider because it was meritless they created the cover story that the trial lawyers were unaware of Bonnett's log, which is nonsense, and that is why the trial team did not advance the claim.  They didn't want the truth to come out which is that it is meritless and that is why the trial lawyers never made the claim.

I don't dispute that the times of the call was discussed in court. It was argued over and over again in order to determine the approximate time of the call from Jeremy to the police. There are several logs in question here, its also a question of which log was used at the time. None of us can see what was passed to the jury and there is no mention of "my daughter or that one log says 27 years old and the other says 26 years old" Nor did they discuss the many inconsistencies on each log.  If there are documents to prove this then by all means pop them up on the forum and lets have a look at them?