Logs - make your own minds up

[Hartley]

Thirdly, the logs mention 1 dead male first and 1 dead female second....  If we are to buy the police response, it should be the other way round. 

My second observation, which relates to your third point above, which questions the order of one dead male followed by one dead female on the EP Communications form.

What do you make of the words "Following Update" on that form? Is it in any way possible that the form originally only stated "one dead female" and had a couple of blank lines above it. Then upon entry and the discovery of Ralph's body, they added "Following update 1 (one) dead male?

What do you think? Could that actually have been what happened?

[Hartley]

Another observation 

The occupants of car CA07 were PS Bews, PC Myall and PS Saxby.

The first officers to enter the house and find Ralphs body were PC Delgado, PS Adams, PS Woodcock, PC Collins, PC Hall and PC Alexander-Smart.

Therefore the contents of the EP Communications log produced by the occupants of CA07 which refer to "found on entry" could not have been witnessed first hand, it must have been relayed by one of the firearms team who first entered the house, to one of the occupants of car CA07?

[smiffy]

1 dead male AND 1 dead female.

upper case added for emphasis.

AND ..means in addition to....it makes the connection.

no mistake there .

[Roch]

Yes I am sceptical  Although I'm open to other possibilities.

My first observation is that it is not two logs at all, well I mean it's not two logs of two communications, it's a record of the same communication by sender and receiver. So the argument that it's recorded twice in two different places is incorrect.

On the first image below (The wireless Message Log):
To: I/R (Insp Norman at Chelmsford)
From: CA07 (by police radio)

On the second image below:
Sender: CA07 (by police radio)
Receiver: Insp Norman (at Chelmsford).

Hartley, I can follow what you're saying on this point.  Who wrote the top document in your reply?  Have you seen entry at 7.34?  Which phone are they referring to?

[Roch]

Thirdly, the logs mention 1 dead male first and 1 dead female second....  If we are to buy the police response, it should be the other way round. 

My second observation, which relates to your third point above, which questions the order of one dead male followed by one dead female on the EP Communications form.

What do you make of the words "Following Update" on that form? Is it in any way possible that the form originally only stated "one dead female" and had a couple of blank lines above it. Then upon entry and the discovery of Ralph's body, they added "Following update 1 (one) dead male?

What do you think? Could that actually have been what happened?

On this point, I'd say no. I think that's looking for an explanation at the expense of the most obvious explanation.  Also, look at how the two 2nd closing brackets )
                                                                           ) meet each other top and bottom. The lower bracket appears to start from the upper bracket, IMO.

[Roch]

Another observation 

The occupants of car CA07 were PS Bews, PC Myall and PS Saxby.

The first officers to enter the house and find Ralphs body were PC Delgado, PS Adams, PS Woodcock, PC Collins, PC Hall and PC Alexander-Smart.

Therefore the contents of the EP Communications log produced by the occupants of CA07 which refer to "found on entry" could not have been witnessed first hand, it must have been relayed by one of the firearms team who first entered the house, to one of the occupants of car CA07?

That is interesting. I'd be interested in this aspect being explored further by other posters / Mike T.

[Hartley]

Yes I am sceptical  Although I'm open to other possibilities.

My first observation is that it is not two logs at all, well I mean it's not two logs of two communications, it's a record of the same communication by sender and receiver. So the argument that it's recorded twice in two different places is incorrect.

On the first image below (The wireless Message Log):
To: I/R (Insp Norman at Chelmsford)
From: CA07 (by police radio)

On the second image below:
Sender: CA07 (by police radio)
Receiver: Insp Norman (at Chelmsford).

Hartley, I can follow what you're saying on this point.  Who wrote the top document in your reply?  Have you seen entry at 7.34?  Which phone are they referring to?

I don't know who wrote the wireless log. The phone mentioned hearing the five knocks at the door, I would assume is the kitchen phone left off the hook and listened into by BT.

Again I'm not sure though, just guessing.

[tyler]

Patti,have bumped this thread for you,as you had wanted all logs on one thread and they seem to be here.

[Patti]

Patti,have bumped this thread for you,as you had wanted all logs on one thread and they seem to be here.

YEY!  You're a star! I shall now take a butcher's....

[Caroline R]

I noticed this a few weeks ago, these two documents cover the same time period but are evidently different. In my last job we had to keep a time event log and there would NEVER be two, it would lead to confusion and mistakes. Why are there two logs covering the same event??

[lookout]

Too many cooks,Caroline,,which leads to confusion as to which of them is true to fact. Might as well toss a coin.

[Patti]

I'm nipping to PC World to buy a printer....I'm on a budget, but I can digest them more if I sit down with them rather than keep looking at one then the other.....wish me luck...I have 40 quid to spare. I'll be back to cause a rumpus later...Ha! 

[lookout]

I'm nipping to PC World to buy a printer....I'm on a budget, but I can digest them more if I sit down with them rather than keep looking at one then the other.....wish me luck...I have 40 quid to spare. I'll be back to cause a rumpus later...Ha! 

I gave a brand new printer to a grandson only because I wasn't sure how many sockets I could use in an extension,,and because I was scared of over-loading it,,I gave it away.
However,at some point,I'll have to buy another laptop,so I'll indulge in another printer myself as it'll save writers cramp. Even so,,I'll still have to engage an electrician to make sure I don't blow the place to smithereens. 
So we can expect your usual expertise---------------and more.??

[grahameb]

There are still anomalies that we cannot get round. The question of not only of "One male dead. One female dead upon entry". Then we read "AS further 3 bodies found. 5 in total". This still intriques me. Sorry but I don't believe they made three mistakes. The question of course is, How did the body of Sheila get upstairs? The obvious answer is of course. If she was dead someone must have carried her up there? Who must that/those somebody be? Obviously6 the police or two police officers. Yet another two questions play upon my mind. WHY did they move her and why did they lie about it? Or if you prefer. Why did they think it necessary to change the logs?

[lookout]

If ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be no work for tinkers hands. Anomalies galore,,but as I said earlier,,none of those concerned have the guts or decency to come forward.