What makes Bamber innocent?

[mike tesko]

If we have to bring J's phone call (3.36am) forward by 10 minutes, we have to bring the timing of other events forward by the same period...

[mike tesko]

If we have to bring J's phone call (3.36am) forward by 10 minutes, we have to bring the timing of other events forward by the same period...

If J  called cops at 3.26am, rather than 3.36am, then the occupants of CA07 were still deployed to the incident 'prior to'  J making his call to cops, at whatever time anybody wants to attach a time to J's call to the cop at Chelmsford...

[mike tesko]

The occupants of CA07 were always 'deployed to the incident' prior to J making his 'call to cops', be that occurring at 3.36am, or 3.26am, or whatever time...

[mike tesko]

So, and this is rather significant, it still begs an answer to the question, ' what made the occupants of CA07 to be deployed to the incident', prior to J contacting cops?  They had ' obviously' received information, or intelligence, that something was ' untoward' at the farmhouse, without any input from J...

[mike tesko]

Based upon the assumption that cops got their timings wrong, then dads call to cops, had not occurred at at 3.26am, but rather at 3.15am...

[mike tesko]

The most obvious pieces of information or evidence which guarantees his total innocence, is the fact that:-


(b) no evidence presented to prove that anyone had been shot prior to J making his 3.36am call to cops...

1 - Occupants of CA07 were deployed to scene prior to J making his call, evidence which confirms that cops received other intelligence and information regarding what was transpiring at the farmhouse from a different source...

What is it, that we already know about that adequately informs us as to the 'other source'  via which cops received intelligence and information, about what was happening at the farmhouse before J called cop at Chelmsford? The record of the other phone log bearing the time of 3.26am was one such source, as was the fact that an alarm installed by SB as part of a family protection program was activated at 3.29am. This other phone log, and the activation of the alarm, are the only two sources (timed at 3.26am, and 3.29am) that are on record as having occurred prior to the deployment of the occupants of CA07 at 3.35am, so these must be the source from which the aforementioned intelligence was gleaned, resulting in Bews, Myall and Saxby being dispatched to the incident. This proves that J is in the clear and that he was telling the truth about receiving a telephone call from dad, details of which he later recounted to the cop at Chelmsford (3.36am) by which time it becomes clear that cops were already dealing with the same matter, hence why the occupants of CA07 had already been deployed before J made his cop call to Chelmsford...

[mike tesko]

En route to the scene, Cop at Chelmsford who took J's call at 3.36am, relayed the nature and content of his (J) call over to the occupants of CA07, adding that the son had been told to attend the incident and liase with cops. This information could not have been relayed to the occupants of CA07 until after they had already got underway after 3.35am, and no sooner that 3.36am. This is the correct interpretation regarding why the occupants of CA07 were deployed before J called cop at Chelmsford. They could not have set off to the incident at whf based on any information supplied by J because he had not spoken to the cop at Chelmsford by that stage. They were updated about J's call to cop at Chelmsford whilst CA07 were already en route to the scene. This information must have been relayed to them, after the cop at Chelmsford told J to go directly to the scene where he would be met by other cops who had already been deployed to investigate the complaint. We know that the occupants of CA07 arrived at the scene at precisely 3.48am, and we know that it must have been around 3.45am before the cop at Chelmsford told J to go to the farmhouse, adding that he should not approach the house alone, but rather he must wait until cops who had been deployed arrived. What this suggests is that at the time the cop at Chelmsford was giving these instructions to J at around 3.45am, that the cop at Chelmsford might not have been aware in that moment of time, that the occupants of CA07 had 'already been deployed to the same incident. The cop at Chelmsford may have had in his mind, the deployment of CA05 as being the cops he knew were already en route to the scene, hence why the cop who was instructing J over the phone added for J not to approach the farmhouse until these cops arrived there. As I say, there clearly appears to have been an air of mystery surrounding the deployment of CA07 and its occupants to whf before J contacted the cop at Chelmsford. The reason for this is now robustly clear, cops had received 'two calls' that morning, and a SB alarm had been activated. Dad had made the first call at 3.26am, the contents of which were noted. This was followed 3 minutes later by the activation of the SB alarm at 3.29am. As a result the occupants of CA07 were deployed to investigate (3.35am). Then J made his call to the cop at Chelmsford (3.36am), which resulted in the occupants of CA05 being deployed to the farmhouse at 3.36am. Whilst this latter deployment was being orchestrated, the cop at Chelmsford spoke to a civilian employee named Bonnet, and at this time he discovered that a different mobile response in the form of CA07 had already been deployed to the same matter, and as a result Bonnet added a note at the foot of dads phone log bearing the time 3.26am, to the effect that ' the son of Mr Bamber' had contacted CM with a similar message', etc...

[mike tesko]

There will obviously still be some, who advocate the PC West got the timing of J's call wrong by 10 minutes, but even if that were true, it still does not mean that the contents of the 3.26am phone log is what J said to the cop at Chelmsford. This has been discussed on a different thread. However, why would cops make two different phone logs of the same call, one timed at 3.26am, and the other, at 3.36am? It doesn't make sense, since there are no other examples where this has been done, involving PC West (3.36am) and Malcolm Bonnet (3.26am). What should not be overlooked is the fact that during the trial (October, 1986), it was only suggested that the timing of J's call to the cop at Chelmsford had been misrecorded as having occurred at 3.36am, when it had happened 10 minutes sooner at 3.26am. But no physical evidence was produced or adduced in support of such a contention. The closest we got to any of this was when Rivlin QC was pulling West to pieces over what he had written down in his phone log (3.36am) as to what J had supposedly said to him, against something totally different which PC West had stated in one of his witness statements, what he had recorded there that he said J had told him? The information recorded at both sources did not match up, so Rivlin wanted an explanation from PC West for the discrepancies. Now, at this juncture, it may be worth repeating again, that the contents of both phone logs (3.36am, and 3.26am) were not disclosed during the trial alongside one another. Since, as everybody knows it was the defence case throughout the duration of the trial, that J had been woken in the dark of night by a telephone call from dad. It wasn't a conversation as such, more like an attempt by dad to very quickly impart information to J, because dad must have had something far more important on his mind at the time dad was making that call to J. Basically put, it was the defence case that at around 3.25am dad had been alive at that stage. He must have been because he telephoned J and very quickly and with some urgency he blurted it out, that either ' Sheila has got the gun', or maybe ' she has got the gun', or who knows for sure, dad could easily have said, 'he has got the gun', and 'gone crazy, going crazy', or 'gone berserk, going berserk', ending, 'come quickly'. There being no opportunity for J to ask dad anything, to try and clarify, the true state of play at the farmhouse. The call ended just as abruptly as it had commenced. So, on this footing dad must have been alive at that stage, and in any event it was the defence case that dad had been alive at 'that' stage. So, having regard to this, and together with the fact that J was insistent that after the call got terminated how upon trying to ring dad back his efforts were met by a constant engaged tone. It is important that I should speak about this aspect of the defence case, since during the trial the prosecution went to great pains to suggest that if dad had called J, the line had been cut, and because the handset had been found off its cradle at the scene, that J would not have been able to get an engaged tone, or even dial the police until a certain amount of time had elapsed. Anyway, what the prosecution knew, and what we all now know, with of course the benefit of hindsight, is that...

[mike tesko]

There will obviously still be some, who advocate the PC West got the timing of J's call wrong by 10 minutes, but even if that were true, it still does not mean that the contents of the 3.26am phone log is what J said to the cop at Chelmsford. This has been discussed on a different thread. However, why would cops make two different phone logs of the same call, one timed at 3.26am, and the other, at 3.36am? It doesn't make sense, since there are no other examples where this has been done, involving PC West (3.36am) and Malcolm Bonnet (3.26am). What should not be overlooked is the fact that during the trial (October, 1986), it was only suggested that the timing of J's call to the cop at Chelmsford had been misrecorded as having occurred at 3.36am, when it had happened 10 minutes sooner at 3.26am. But no physical evidence was produced or adduced in support of such a contention. The closest we got to any of this was when Rivlin QC was pulling West to pieces over what he had written down in his phone log (3.36am) as to what J had supposedly said to him, against something totally different which PC West had stated in one of his witness statements, what he had recorded there that he said J had told him? The information recorded at both sources did not match up, so Rivlin wanted an explanation from PC West for the discrepancies. Now, at this juncture, it may be worth repeating again, that the contents of both phone logs (3.36am, and 3.26am) were not disclosed during the trial alongside one another. Since, as everybody knows it was the defence case throughout the duration of the trial, that J had been woken in the dark of night by a telephone call from dad. It wasn't a conversation as such, more like an attempt by dad to very quickly impart information to J, because dad must have had something far more important on his mind at the time dad was making that call to J. Basically put, it was the defence case that at around 3.25am dad had been alive at that stage. He must have been because he telephoned J and very quickly and with some urgency he blurted it out, that either ' Sheila has got the gun', or maybe ' she has got the gun', or who knows for sure, dad could easily have said, 'he has got the gun', and 'gone crazy, going crazy', or 'gone berserk, going berserk', ending, 'come quickly'. There being no opportunity for J to ask dad anything, to try and clarify, the true state of play at the farmhouse. The call ended just as abruptly as it had commenced. So, on this footing dad must have been alive at that stage, and in any event it was the defence case that dad had been alive at 'that' stage. So, having regard to this, and together with the fact that J was insistent that after the call got terminated how upon trying to ring dad back his efforts were met by a constant engaged tone. It is important that I should speak about this aspect of the defence case, since during the trial the prosecution went to great pains to suggest that if dad had called J, the line had been cut, and because the handset had been found off its cradle at the scene, that J would not have been able to get an engaged tone, or even dial the police until a certain amount of time had elapsed. Anyway, what the prosecution knew, and what we all now know, with of course the benefit of hindsight, is that...

There existed, the 'contents of dads 3.26am phone log', together with a similar phone log made by PC West of J's 3.36am call...

What transpired as a result of cops and the prosecution withholding the contents of dads 3.26am phone log made by Malcolm Bonnet, is that it deprived the defence of a robust piece of evidence which was capable of supporting the contention that dad was known to be alive after dad had called J at around 3.25am, because dad had called cops himself at 3.26am. Not only that, but by virtue of the fact that cops and the prosecution knew that dad himself had raised the alarm before J himself had, it served to demonstrate why J had been getting an engaged tone, when he tried unsuccessfully to ring dad back. J was getting an engaged tone because dad was speaking with cops as soon as the call from dad to J had been terminated. Furthermore, this explains why the occupants of CA07 (3.35am) got deployed to the scene, before J got around to phoning the cop at Chelmsford (3.36am)...

[mike tesko]

Existence of the 3.26am phone log contents, was capable of corroborating J's account relating to a call received from dad, (3.25am) a minute earlier. It explains why J got the engaged tone when he said he had, and it explains why the occupants of CA07 were deployed to whf at 3.35am, without any input at all from J...

[mike tesko]

Existence of the 3.26am phone log contents, was capable of corroborating J's account relating to a call received from dad, (3.25am) a minute earlier. It explains why J got the engaged tone when he said he had, and it explains why the occupants of CA07 were deployed to whf at 3.35am, without any input at all from J...

This establishes J's innocence. He did not kill dad. He did not kill mum. He did not kill his sister, and he did not kill her two little children...

[mike tesko]

It was part of the prosecutions case, that dad would not have called J, that dad would have called cops, and guess what, that is precisely what dad did do...

[mike tesko]

There now needs to be another high profile investigation into the reasoning behind the denial of the 3.26am phone call log details to the defence during the October, 1986 Crown Court trial. If cops knew about its existence, and the prosecution knew about its existence, the question which needs to be answered, and very sharpiushly I might add, is ' did the trial Judge, Drake, also know of the existence of this compelling piece of evidence?

[mike tesko]

Having pondered long and hard over the implications of the withholding of this valuable piece of evidence, I am left in no doubt whatsoever that J is completely innocent. He said he received the call from dad, and he did. He said he kept getting the engaged tone when he tried to ring dad back, and he did get a constant engaged tone. He did because dad was speaking with cops and the contents of the 3.26am phone log bear witness to that. Dad called cops, just like the prosecution claimed he would have done if dad had still been alive when J said he was...

'Dad was alive, alive, alive, O'...

[mike tesko]

Having pondered long and hard over the implications of the withholding of this valuable piece of evidence, I am left in no doubt whatsoever that J is completely innocent. He said he received the call from dad, and he did. He said he kept getting the engaged tone when he tried to ring dad back, and he did get a constant engaged tone. He did because dad was speaking with cops and the contents of the 3.26am phone log bear witness to that. Dad called cops, just like the prosecution claimed he would have done if dad had still been alive when J said he was...

'Dad was alive, alive, alive, O'...

Now, because of this fact, it stands to good reason that if J had got the gun and J had been attacking dad, that dad would have told cops this when dad called cops himself, as per the 3.26am phone log contents. No, it wasn't J with the gun, it was dads 'daughter'. It is spelt out clearly, fair and squarely, dad told cops during that phone call (3.26am) 'my daughter has got hold of one of my guns', nothing could be any clearer, it was dads daughter with the one of dads guns, nobody else. That was one of the reasons why cops and prosecution did not want to disclose the logs contents to the defence during the trial. Because it was part of the prosecutions case that J had planted that idea into the minds of cops from a very early stage, that Sheila had ran amok with the gun, shot and killed everybody, then herself. When if the truth be known dad had mentioned that his 'daughter' had the gun. Dad never said that daughter had shot anybody, or killed anybody, dad just told cops that 'my daughter has got hold of one of my guns'. If for one moment cops had got any inclination that anybody had been shot the cops would have called for an ambulance immediately. But, they chose not to do this in response to dads call (3.26am), or J's call (3.36am)...