submit questions for the Essex Police Challenge

[Jane]

Pity it wasn't queried about the " mistakes " made during phone conversations that the police had received,i.e, your sister-----------my daughter. Age 26/27 ?

If two phone-calls didn't happen,and it was a mistake on behalf of EP,wouldn't anyone ask themselves how many more mistakes the police made ?

Why would Jeremy have given the right age one minute,then the wrong age in the following call if it was he who'd allegedly called from WHF ? Daughter/Sister would have fitted,but not the different ages.

You may see it as a gross error. I see it as a natural way of distinguishing relationships. Bamber Jnr calls the police to say he's had a call from Bamber Snr re "your sister has gone mad etc." The call is passed on to a second person as "Bamber Jnr has had a call from Bamber Snr re his daughter going mad etc." I fail to see what is the problem. NOR do I see a problem in quoting an age discrepancy of only up to one year. Last week my cousin asked me how old his brother is. I know only because he's 12 days older than I. I see nothing strange in one sibling not knowing the year of another sibling's birth.

[lookout]

You may see it as a gross error. I see it as a natural way of distinguishing relationships. Bamber Jnr calls the police to say he's had a call from Bamber Snr re "your sister has gone mad etc." The call is passed on to a second person as "Bamber Jnr has had a call from Bamber Snr re his daughter going mad etc." I fail to see what is the problem. NOR do I see a problem in quoting an age discrepancy of only up to one year. Last week my cousin asked me how old his brother is. I know only because he's 12 days older than I. I see nothing strange in one sibling not knowing the year of another sibling's birth.

But if the call came from only one person in such a short time,why would you suddenly forget the age ?

[lookout]

Plus,if it was something that someone had written down,wouldn't/shouldn't they themselves query it by double-checking to get it right.? Like,make up your mind,was it 26 or 27. What's it to be ? As it would sound to me as if someone was making it up by guessing.It's far easier to give out an age than it is a date/year of birth.
I could understand if it was Neville who'd got it wrong as he wouldn't have been as alert on those matters especially being asked at a most inopportune moment as it was.

[Jane]

But if the call came from only one person in such a short time,why would you suddenly forget the age ?

I can only think that he was focused more on the alleged activities of the subject of the call (Sheila) than the age of the subject. I REALLY don't see it as being that big a deal. On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd rate it as 1.

[Jane]

Plus,if it was something that someone had written down,wouldn't/shouldn't they themselves query it by double-checking to get it right.? Like,make up your mind,was it 26 or 27. What's it to be ? As it would sound to me as if someone was making it up by guessing.It's far easier to give out an age than it is a date/year of birth.
I could understand if it was Neville who'd got it wrong as he wouldn't have been as alert on those matters especially being asked at a most inopportune moment as it was.

Would the situation have been any different if Sheila had been one age, 26, as opposed to the other, 27 OR vice versa?

[lookout]

Anyway,I just find it so sad that after 30 years,there is still a " fight " going on to obtain evidence that should have been to hand in 1986.
Obviously Jeremy isn't perturbed at what could or might surface,which makes it all the more feasible that he told the truth. Otherwise,after all this time I think you'd put the whole thing down to experience and forget that there'd ever be a chance of freedom.

If Duckenfield can apologise after 26 years,then there's still hope for Jeremy.

[Caroline]

Patti I'm sure there was a name on here for the latest representative for Jeremy. A lawyer who also has the help with others. There was also mention of new " exciting " evidence ( Jeremy's words ) so something must have come to light.
Would anyone think it worth bothering about if they were 100% sure of his guilt ? I don't think so.

Yes, I've heard THAT before - MANY times!! 

[Caroline]

But if the call came from only one person in such a short time,why would you suddenly forget the age ?

The call didn't come from one person - Jeremy called West - West Called Bonnett, West OBVIOUSLY hadn't written everything down and completed some info after the call, which is why the time is incorrect. There is no mystery, no conspiracy, just sloppy work.

[Caroline]

Anyway,I just find it so sad that after 30 years,there is still a " fight " going on to obtain evidence that should have been to hand in 1986.
Obviously Jeremy isn't perturbed at what could or might surface,which makes it all the more feasible that he told the truth. Otherwise,after all this time I think you'd put the whole thing down to experience and forget that there'd ever be a chance of freedom.

If Duckenfield can apologise after 26 years,then there's still hope for Jeremy.

Yes, he might FINALLY come clean!

[Jane]

Anyway,I just find it so sad that after 30 years,there is still a " fight " going on to obtain evidence that should have been to hand in 1986.
Obviously Jeremy isn't perturbed at what could or might surface,which makes it all the more feasible that he told the truth. Otherwise,after all this time I think you'd put the whole thing down to experience and forget that there'd ever be a chance of freedom.

If Duckenfield can apologise after 26 years,then there's still hope for Jeremy.

If Jeremy is convinced that there is nothing more TO surface there's no need to be perturbed. It is as it is.

[lookout]

Yes, he might FINALLY come clean!

See how something innocently said turns itself around ? You should have been a cop.

[Caroline]

If Jeremy is convinced that there is nothing more TO surface there's no need to be perturbed. It is as it is.

Jeremy has already said he has ALL of the documents now so not sure what fight Lookout is talking about. The fight is over - it's just a matter of picking over the bones - there's certainly no meat left! 

[Caroline]

See how something innocently said turns itself around ? You should have been a cop.

You give me the lines, I just make the most of them! 

[John]

For any honest person "‘message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead, Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410’s’" would be enough to rule out a call from Neville, the document CLEARLY states it isn't.

Not to mention the fact that had a policeman received such a call I think he would have remembered it.

[lookout]

 To be perfectly honest,I can't think of anything worse than being innocent,and having no proof of your innocence. It sucks.