Police log contents, and position of bodies in photographs don't add up, CRIKEY.

[mike tesko]

A typical example of the dishonesty that I am speaking about, involves the alleged find of the silencer by relatives at the scene on 10th August 1985, where they identify the said silencer as Exhibit reference DRB/1, when if the truth be known the silencer did not have this exhibit reference (DRB/1) by that stage...

Whoever made this witness statement and included the wrong exhibit reference of DRB/1, in one fell swoop different silencers became merged into one, using a relatives witness statement as the medium via which the deception was carried off...

[mike tesko]

By producing a witness statement in which on the first day of the alleged find of the silencer (10th August) you call it DRB/1, you are seeking to conceal from everybody who may be influenced by such a deception to wrongly belie e that there is no issue at all concerning tbe intevrity of that silebcer, and any blood or paint evidence which was associated with it when the silencer (be it the same silencer or not) had a totally different exhibit reference of DB/1...

[scipio_usmc]

You don't know what your talking about, one minute your saying Jeremy immediately called Chelmsford police station after his fathers call, and the next minute your saying you already said he called Witham police station immediately after his fathers call. When I corrected you, all you have a habit of doing is calling me a liar, and saying that I am talking nonsense. Well, all I can say is that you are fucking nuts...

What I said is easy to comprehend and is not in the least bit contradictory.

1) The Truth
Jeremy called Julie and then called Witham but got no response and then called Chelmsford and spoke to West telling him the lie that Nevill phoned requesting help.

2) The lie Jeremy told West and initial responders at the scene
Jeremy told West and the police at the scene the LIE that after he Nevill's call was disconnected he tried to phone back but the line was busy so then Jeremy immediately called Witham and no one answered so then he called Chelmsford and spoke to West and subsequent to this he phoned Julie.

3) The lie Jeremy told detectives and at his trial
Jeremy told detectives and stated at his trial that after Nevill's call was disconnected he tried to phone back but the line was busy so then Jeremy immediately called Chelmsford and subsequent to this he phoned Julie.

My claims are not contradictory and are well supported by evidence.  In contrast you present a fable that has no evidentiary basis at all and is contradicted by Jeremy's trial testimony. 

[scipio_usmc]

Whoever made this witness statement and included the wrong exhibit reference of DRB/1, in one fell swoop different silencers became merged into one, using a relatives witness statement as the medium via which the deception was carried off...

The deception is coming from you.  By the time many of the statements in question were written the moderator was being referred to as DRB/1.  When it was known as something else at the time documents were created the originals of those documents have the then existing reference.  The typed copies though were amended so that DRB/1 is noted because documents referring to exhibits that no longer exist would cause confusion.

It is known NOW as DRB/1 so when I or anyone else refer to what was found on August 10 we say DRB/1 was found.  It had no exhibit designation on August 10 it wasn't given a designation on August 13.   The only time it is appropriate to mention the oriignal designation it was given is if that exact issue is being discussed.  For example if the issue is what was the designation given to it on August 13 by Cook then I would say DRB/1 was originally designated SBJ/1 by Cook thus he wrote SBJ/1 on the Holab forms he filled out in triplicate on August 13 and stated such to COLP when questioned in 1991.

There is no reason to refer to the moderator by anything other than DRB/1 unless one is specifically discussing what its existing designation was on a particular day.

Whiddon is the one who went through the statements amending everything so that the exhibits referred to in paperwork referred to the current designation.  This was discussed in his COLP statement:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1193.0.html


Your dishonestly only serves to undermine your credibility.

[Jane]

What I said is easy to comprehend and is not in the least bit contradictory.

1) The Truth
Jeremy called Julie and then called Witham but got no response and then called Chelmsford and spoke to West telling him the lie that Nevill phoned requesting help.

2) The lie Jeremy told West and initial responders at the scene
Jeremy told West and the police at the scene the LIE that after he Nevill's call was disconnected he tried to phone back but the line was busy so then Jeremy immediately called Witham and no one answered so then he called Chelmsford and spoke to West and subsequent to this he phoned Julie.

3) The lie Jeremy told detectives and at his trial
Jeremy told detectives and stated at his trial that after Nevill's call was disconnected he tried to phone back but the line was busy so then Jeremy immediately called Chelmsford and subsequent to this he phoned Julie.

My claims are not contradictory and are well supported by evidence.  In contrast you present a fable that has no evidentiary basis at all and is contradicted by Jeremy's trial testimony.

Just thought I should draw your attention to 2 at which you state "Jeremy told..........................the lie that after Neville's call was disconnected......................" The LIE lay in that there WASN'T a call from Neville. I think you knew that, though, didn't you

[scipio_usmc]

Just thought I should draw your attention to 2 at which you state "Jeremy told..........................the lie that after Neville's call was disconnected......................" The LIE lay in that there WASN'T a call from Neville. I think you knew that, though, didn't you

See the last bit in number 1.

[Jane]

See the last bit in number 1.

Just testing

[Reader]

The police said they whiffed by a slow moving car.

No, they didn't. I doubt that "whiffed" is even in the police lexicon.

They didn't say anything about the car being ahead of them for a period of time and them eventually deciding to pass it.

That's the only way it's physically possible to pass a car.

They simply drove, came across a car in their path that was slow moving and passed it by.

That's not how they described what happened. They all put 30mph in their statements.

They estimated it was moving no more than 20MPH when he was passed

That was supposedly on the basis of some later measurements. How can later measurements correct the memories of all three officers at the time? The only means of obtaining 20mph is by assuming that the 3 to 4 minutes wait already mentioned was accurately known, but the later measurements have nothing to do with that. Even the appeal judgment you referred to disagreed with that. There is no suggestion that the wait was deliberately timed by any officer; it was just an estimate the officers agreed on by the time they made their statements. Had Jeremy followed the police car that passed him at an average speed of, say, 45mph instead of 30 mph, he would have saved about 40 seconds - no big deal.

Note that even Pc Myall's carefully timed retrace of the route on 19 September, 1985 is inaccurately recorded. If his speed was at least 25mph, his time for travelling 1 mile should have been no more than 2 minutes 24 seconds.

[mike tesko]

The integrity of the silencer, blood group and paint evidence associated with it, is called into question, because it doesn't matter what date somebody fabricated the contents of the relatives witness statement where the find of the sillencer of 10th August is mentioned, the fact of the matter is thst when it was found it did not have any exhibit label or reference associated with it for 3 whole days, so for anybody to start referring to it by the exhibit reference DRB/1 is certainly a deception of the highest  magnitude. Furtheore, for anyone to be foolish enough to claim there was nothing sinister in the way any of this unfolded, these people must surely be corrupt themselves...

[Jane]

No, they didn't. I doubt that "whiffed" is even in the police lexicon.
That's the only way it's physically possible to pass a car.
That's not how they described what happened. They all put 30mph in their statements.
That was supposedly on the basis of some later measurements. How can later measurements correct the memories of all three officers at the time? The only means of obtaining 20mph is by assuming that the 3 to 4 minutes wait already mentioned was accurately known, but the later measurements have nothing to do with that. Even the appeal judgment you referred to disagreed with that. There is no suggestion that the wait was deliberately timed by any officer; it was just an estimate the officers agreed on by the time they made their statements. Had Jeremy followed the police car that passed him at an average speed of, say, 45mph instead of 30 mph, he would have saved about 40 seconds - no big deal.

Note that even Pc Myall's carefully timed retrace of the route on 19 September, 1985 is inaccurately recorded. If his speed was at least 25mph, his time for travelling 1 mile should have been no more than 2 minutes 24 seconds.

Perhaps you'd like to give us your version of how Jeremy managed to get to WHF as quickly as he did, when according to Mike the phone calling didn't end until 3.46, it took 6(ish) minutes to dress and get out of the house, into the car, yet he managed to arrive, having driven slowly, STOPPED to put on a sweater -during a journey which according to Mike, only takes 5 minutes-  at 3.52.

[scipio_usmc]

No, they didn't. I doubt that "whiffed" is even in the police lexicon.

The estimate was he was doing more more than 20MPH which resulted in them rapidly approaching and overtaking the vehicle they suddenly encountered which they later realized was Jeremy.

That's the only way it's physically possible to pass a car.

No there are multiple ways to pass a car.  One is to wait a while.  Another is to do so immediately.  The police didn't see Jeremy for a long period of time and slowly overtake him. They came upon him suddenly because they were traveling fast and they left him in the dust because while they were traveling fast he was not.  That is the same reason they overtook him rapidly instead of it taking a period of time.

You play games to try to support your nonsense like Mike does and in fact both of you present the same made up lie that Jeremy phoned Witham, then Julie and then Chelmsford and this lie is supposed to prevent him from having lied when he said he called Julie after police but it is simply a made up lie that is not what Jeremy claimed.  You play the same kinds of games to try to pretend there is evidence Nevill called police.  All these games accomplish is to cement your reputations as dishonest apologist clowns.

 
That's not how they described what happened. They all put 30mph in their statements.
That was supposedly on the basis of some later measurements. How can later measurements correct the memories of all three officers at the time? The only means of obtaining 20mph is by assuming that the 3 to 4 minutes wait already mentioned was accurately known, but the later measurements have nothing to do with that. Even the appeal judgment you referred to disagreed with that. There is no suggestion that the wait was deliberately timed by any officer; it was just an estimate the officers agreed on by the time they made their statements. Had Jeremy followed the police car that passed him at an average speed of, say, 45mph instead of 30 mph, he would have saved about 40 seconds - no big deal.

Note that even Pc Myall's carefully timed retrace of the route on 19 September, 1985 is inaccurately recorded. If his speed was at least 25mph, his time for travelling 1 mile should have been no more than 2 minutes 24 seconds.

They put NO MORE than 30MPH in their statements which was later changed to no more than 20MPH after they conducted tests where they drove the distance and took into account the distance they recalled between their speed and his speed. It makes no difference if they took a few extra seconds before to stopwatch actually stopped.  They were considering how slow he would have been moving while they were going over 70MPH and they assessed he would have been doing 20MPH or less.  They didn't think that hard about it when they initially put no more than 30MPH and after due consideration they realized they inflated his maximum speed. 

[Reader]

Jeremy then made his own phone call to the police timed at 3.36am, as per the log with that time. This call lasted 9 or 10 minutes, so by 3.46am, Jeremy made the effort to get himself to the scene, and within 5 minutes he arrived in Pages Lane, at 3.52am...

This is the best explanation I can give after extensive research carried out by me into the matter.

Pc West's log shows 3:42 as the time when the BT operator told him the result of checking the WHF line (which Pc West stated at trial occurred after Jeremy's call had ended), so Jeremy's call to Pc West lasted at most 7 minutes on the basis of the times recorded by Pc West. A duration of about 6 minutes is more likely, as Jeremy needed a short time to get to his car.

[scipio_usmc]

Perhaps you'd like to give us your version of how Jeremy managed to get to WHF as quickly as he did, when according to Mike the phone calling didn't end until 3.46, it took 6(ish) minutes to dress and get out of the house, into the car, yet he managed to arrive, having driven slowly, STOPPED to put on a sweater -during a journey which according to Mike, only takes 5 minutes-  at 3.52.

Reader claimed this nonsense as well and perhaps before Mike ever did. He is the one who absurdly suggested police would have wanted to conceal that Nevill called because it might panic him so West never told him about Nevill's call and went through the motions as a farce just to conceal such news from Jeremy.

Since both are so dishonest they allege a call that there is zero support for you need not worry about them worrying about the fact Jeremy would not have been able to get in front of the police.  He even denied it would take a minute to lock the house, get in his car, start it and leave the driveway. He said it would take a few seconds to do so and mere seconds to dress and phone Julie before leaving.

 

[scipio_usmc]

Pc West's log shows 3:42 as the time when the BT operator told him the result of checking the WHF line (which Pc West stated at trial occurred after Jeremy's call had ended), so Jeremy's call to Pc West lasted at most 7 minutes on the basis of the times recorded by Pc West. A duration of about 6 minutes is more likely, as Jeremy needed a short time to get to his car.

West didn't say how long it took the operator to get back to him.  He simply noted 3:42 is the time the BT operator got back to him and told him the the line was indeed busy. The call ended before 3:42 because it was prior to 3:42 that West called the phone company though we don't know how many minutes before 3:42 he called the phone company.

You and Mike are stupidly suggesting that Jeremy phoned at 3:36 and was off the phone by 3:41 which means at most he was on the phone with police for 5 minutes including the time he was put on hold.  This timetable is entirely made up.  It would have taken several minutes just for West to record all the information he recorded, then he placed Jeremy on hold for several minutes as he called Bonnett and told Bonnett everything Jeremy told him AND then they spent more time dispatching police and finally got back on the phone with Jeremy and spoke to him for another minute at least. You timetable totally falls apart no way could he have called at 3:36 and been off the phone by 3:41. 

Jeremy denies this in the meantime it is entirely made up by you and Mike.  You both intentionally ignore that Jeremy insisted he spoke to Julie after calling Chelmsford because that blows your claims out of the water even more.  No way did he have time to dress and call Julie and get in front of police to be passed so you ignore his own testimony on top of ignoring the reality of how long his conversation with police lasted.

Yeah I know that West estimated he was on the phone for less than a minute before placing Jeremy on hold but his estimate is not credible it would have taken several minutes to record everything he got from Jeremy.  If Nevill had already called and provided such information then West would not have taken it down from Jeremy, would have told him Nevill already phoned so they already knew and already dispatched police to the scene.

Your revisionist claims have no evidentiary foundation and don't hold up to scrutiny.

[Caroline]

Pc West's log shows 3:42 as the time when the BT operator told him the result of checking the WHF line (which Pc West stated at trial occurred after Jeremy's call had ended), so Jeremy's call to Pc West lasted at most 7 minutes on the basis of the times recorded by Pc West. A duration of about 6 minutes is more likely, as Jeremy needed a short time to get to his car.

It's funny how pedantic you are when quoting the time that police gave in their statements, not so much for Jeremy though, who (it is claimed) probably indicated the wrong time because he got a bit confused (bless). Jeremy's memory was a LOT fresher than West's, when he made his statement the day after the murders. Bashing the corners off that square peg won't help it fit!