I posted the two relevant pages of the log above. It most certainly is not evidence that somebody was still alive. It is clear that the firearms team were hailing the house and received no response. If a response was received, then it would be documented, it is not.
Bonnett's use of the word 'conversation' is what you are clinging on to. Technically it would be the wrong word to have used, however the entries in the log which immediately follow and the fact that no other reference to a response from the house exists, clearly show the civilian radio operators meaning.
The choice of the word ‘conversation’ and the distinction ‘with
a person from within the farm’ is strongly suggestive that some form of two-way communication may have been taking place. The fact that four minutes later, it is recorded that no response is received to challenges made… Challenges for what? Challenges relevant to or as a result of a previous bout of two-way communication? For me, your argument about Bonnett's use of the word 'conversation' would be better served if the police had not attempted to claim that the entry refers to Jeremy Bamber. Clearly it doesn't - precisely because it precedes another entry about challenges to the farmhouse. Therefore the police themselves have inadvertantly undermined the argument you are attempting to pursue.
This is another example of you repeating something which you simply have no real knowledge of but you're happy to take it on face value and recite it to others suggesting that it supports your reasoning.
The reality is, that whilst we do not know the contents of the report or indeed the reasons behind any conclusions contained within it, it's hardly a ground breaking revelation. JB was not arrested until just over a month after the five murders, prior to that time Sheila was indeed thought to be responsible, the victims were even released for funerals on that basis.
Of course a report produced before JB became a suspect, wouldn't have concluded that he was to blame.
As far as I am aware Hartley, the report was requested as a review of the available evidence, at a critical juncture in the investigation. After placing pressure on the DCI Thomas Jones, the relatives then escalated the pressure to ACC Simpson and threatened to go public (i.e. the press) with certain information. If I recall correctly, it was DCS Mike Ainsley who requested the review of the available evidence, presumably because DCI Thomas Jones would not change his position in the midst of all this clamour. It is interesting that Ainsley became the detective who took overall control of the case. He claims the result of the review was delivered on 6th September. Whatever Simpson and Ainsley were angling for didn’t come to fruition – because DI Kenneally vindicated DCI Thomas Jones’ position. Since no exact time has been established for Sheila Caffell’s death, regardless of what information was in Kenneally’s report, I fail to see why there has to be an arbitrary cut off point for activity in the house at 3.48am. Let us see the contents of the report – so that we can make our own minds up?
This bit is just nonsense. You can't possibly know the reasons behind such a report not being released yet you immediately decide it is some sort of conspiracy, then you throw in suggestions that he may have known people in the house were still alive after 3:48.
Is it not more likely that Jeremy was not found to be responsible at that time, simply because he was not suspected?
I actually think I’m being quite logical: in that I suspect the report is not available because it would likely undermine the prosecution’s case against Jeremy Bamber. A similar example may be the missing officer’s report about the ‘shooting in the kitchen’ (curiously though, this isn't listed in the petition).
I fear that this is another case of you believing something at face value without actually having cause to do so.
It's strange that there is still a petition to release the logs which are shown on the original list of exhibits and even contain a court sticker (and are posted on this forum).
https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-amber-rudd-mp-home-secretary-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-under-pii-to-jeremybamber-s-legal-defence
The various incarnations that have been referred to as the defence over the years, have claimed many things and requested all manner of different items of evidence, some existed, some didn't and some were already in their possession.
I think Paul Terzeon had a somewhat more eloquent way of stating that something may or may not have been available to the defence.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754
I think this is referring to different handwritten logs. I’m not personally saying that such logs exist – but it is clear that some other people believe they did. From what I can remember, it has been claimed there was a mass erasure of evidence not conducive to prosecuting Jeremy Bamber, instigated by DC Ainsley when he took over the case. Presumably, DI Kenneally had access to this original evidence, prior to its erasure.
I expect so, but I think you are so entrenched in your position on the case that you probably don't even realise you are doing it. 
Compared to what it previously was, I feel my stance is more open to considering Jeremy Bamber as having some involvement or knowledge of the events – however, I have so far never been able to exclude Sheila Caffell from having had involvement. I am yet to become convinced that Jeremy Bamber did have involvement or was indeed wholly culpable.
