A Call To Essex Police From Neville? - The poll

[Reader]

My premise?

Yes, your premise in your post #317, which was what April replied to.

[John]

There are two logs, one by PC West and one by civilian worker Bonnett.  The disputed times were 3.26 and 3.36am which isn't in the least surprising since clocks weren't computer synchronised in 1985.

The suggestion that Nevill phoned the police has been shown to be false on so many levels yet some poor souls persist with this nonsense.  A bit like the police shot Sheila crap.

[Patti]

There are two logs, one by PC West and one by civilian worker Bonnett.  The disputed times were 3.26 and 3.36am which isn't in the least surprising since clocks weren't computer synchronised in 1985.

The suggestion that Nevill phoned the police has been shown to be false on so many levels yet some poor souls persist with this nonsense.  A bit like the police shot Sheila crap.

Er nowt wrong with my soul 

John the log that Bamber claims to have found in 2007 which was published in the press as new evidence that Neville B had called the police is in dispute. I think all of us want to know if it was this particular document was discussed in court as being different from the other one.  For example one log says she was 26 and the other said she was 27...There are differences, obviously they were written by two different people.

Having been in court yourself is it normal practice to show the jury all labelled exhibited documents that are listed? 

[tyler]

I have mistaken living men for women and women for men.  Perhaps even worse I have mistaken rather ugly women as being men in drag.  Some people are easy to mistake.  When you see a face up close you can usually tell whether you were right or wrong. 

In this case the face could not be seen even from a distance so that makes it far easier to mistake Nevill for a woman.

What people keep ignoring is that he logs were not written by someone on the scene. The logs were written by people far from the scene who can misinterpret what they hear.  Worse yet they were being fed information from people who were not eyewitnesses and who theselves could have been misconstrued things.  That is why courts want testimony from eyewitnesses instead of second or thirdhard accounts of what such eyewitnesses saw.

There are no eyewitnesses who saw more than 1 body in the kitchen.  The person who looked in the window only saw 1 body, the one that ultimately ended up being Nevill. Likewise every cop who entered only saw 1 body in the kitchen. That's more than a dozen people.  That alone is enough to demonstrate the log entry was definitely a mistake.

But the physical evidence says that as well. The physical evidence is that Sheila and June died in the master bedroom. Blood evidence as well as shell casings demonstrate that. There is no evidence to suggest either were dragged by the killer to the kitchen then dragged back to their orignal death location by police.   


   

Nope,sorry but there is no explanation amongst your post as to how the lone body of Bevill Bamber in the kitchen could possibly have been described as a murder AND a suicide.

[Reader]

The disputed times were 3.26 and 3.36am which isn't in the least surprising since clocks weren't computer synchronised in 1985.

They were digital clocks, so they had quartz timing or their timing was based on the frequency of the power supply. Either way, they would easily stay approximately synchronized unless manually set incorrectly.

[Reader]

The logs were written by people far from the scene who can misinterpret what they hear.

Why do you think EP have failed to release Pc Saxby's log?

[scipio_usmc]

Er nowt wrong with my soul 

John the log that Bamber claims to have found in 2007 which was published in the press as new evidence that Neville B had called the police is in dispute. I think all of us want to know if it was this particular document was discussed in court as being different from the other one.  For example one log says she was 26 and the other said she was 27...There are differences, obviously they were written by two different people.

Having been in court yourself is it normal practice to show the jury all labelled exhibited documents that are listed? 

The supposedly new log is Bonnett's log that was a trial exhibit:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-missing-police-phone-239793

Bonnett did not testify at trial instead they just had his log admitted into evidence.  West actually spoke to Jeremy so they had him testify.  Thus his log was not admitted into evidence to be used in lieu of testimony but rather he testified as to the contents of his log instead.

[Mr. Gee]

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

I can't seem to see that this refers to two logs. But only one was shown to the jury apparently.  But scipio referred to the two logs being argued over in court. That is what I wanted to know. But reading this document does not say that any arguing took place? So where did scipio get that information?

[Mr. Gee]

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.

Oh yes I see what you mean now.

[maggie]

I have see this photograph, not just the photocopy shown here.  Without going into details there is far more visible.  I accept that a brief glimpse of the view from the rear might have led to the mistaken conclusion that the body was that of a women, but that is far less likely than might appear from this poor quality photocopy.

This remains an aspect of the case which troubles me.

As we haven't seen the photo of Neil in the kitchen it is surely interesting to hear from someone who has.  If Ngb tells us there is far more visible than in the photocopy and for that reason he apparently has doubts why there was a mistake about the sex if the body then surely that is interesting and should be taken on board. 
As far as I can see the photocopy of the photo is so dark it's almost impossible to make out any features at all of the deceased.  I wonder if the photograph was posted on the forum and showed without doubt the person n the photo was male if guilters would at east hesitate for a moment,.  Surely ngb is trustworthy enough to deserve some consideration of his judgement. Surely it should at least be food for thought. imo

[Mr. Gee]

Nope,sorry but there is no explanation amongst your post as to how the lone body of Bevill Bamber in the kitchen could possibly have been described as a murder AND a suicide.

Yes Tyler. Yet another intriguing mystery.

[Mr. Gee]

They were digital clocks, so they had quartz timing or their timing was based on the frequency of the power supply. Either way, they would easily stay approximately synchronized unless manually set incorrectly.

Yes they did have syncronized clocks and watches in 1985 didn't they? I remember I had one. A quartz watch.

[scipio_usmc]

Oh yes I see what you mean now.

Then you also see why Jeremy's lawyers would be unable to advance the claim on appeal that:

1) Bonnett's log was hidden from the original trial team and

2) it proves Bonnett received a call from Nevill.

So instead of being a genuine argument that could result in Jeremy being freed it merely is a propaganda argument used to try to get Jeremy followers.

That is the real difference between the campaign team and legal team.  The legal team is looking for evidence and arguments that can be used in court to get Jeremy freed.  The campaign team is just looking for anything that can use to convince the public to believe that Jeremy is innocent whether true or not.

The legal team needs credible evidence the campaign team needs credible evidence to convince people with strong knowledge of the case but can fool people with poor knowledge of the case rather easily.   That seems to be who they are going after.

The legal team has the harder task and the more important one.

 

[Mr. Gee]

The supposedly new log is Bonnett's log that was a trial exhibit:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-missing-police-phone-239793

Bonnett did not testify at trial instead they just had his log admitted into evidence.  West actually spoke to Jeremy so they had him testify.  Thus his log was not admitted into evidence to be used in lieu of testimony but rather he testified as to the contents of his log instead.

But as the document Caroline copied from the OS stated that one of the logs was not shown to the jury, is that correct?

[Mr. Gee]

Then you also see why Jeremy's lawyers would be unable to advance the claim on appeal that:

1) Bonnett's log was hidden from the original trial team and

2) it proves Bonnett received a call from Nevill.

So instead of being a genuine argument that could result in Jeremy being freed it merely is a propaganda argument used to try to get Jeremy followers.

That is the real difference between the campaign team and legal team.  The legal team is looking for evidence and arguments that can be used in court to get Jeremy freed.  The campaign team is just looking for anything that can use to convince the public to believe that Jeremy is innocent whether true or not.

The legal team needs credible evidence the campaign team needs credible evidence to convince people with strong knowledge of the case but can fool people with poor knowledge of the case rather easily.   That seems to be who they are going after.

The legal team has the harder task and the more important one.

Yes I can see that now. Obviously not new evidence.