What makes Bamber innocent?

[John]

That's incorrect, it's not police policy to tell informants anything about what another informant has told them....

Of course it is silly.

[John]

So what,if JB had shown Sheila how to load a gun/rifle ? For all any of us know Sheila might have asked JB to show her how it was done. JB would have obliged but wouldn't have had a clue that his sister was using her know-how for future reference.

It's not a case whether anything is the truth or not,it's whatever is perceived according to what YOU,YOURSELVES believe.
None of us were at WHF when certain things were discussed so what makes any of us think that what we say are facts ?
All this discussion is about now is US and THEM without any thought given that there were three other adults involved besides Jeremy. ALL with an axe to grind in one way or another and ALL at the end of their tethers,so why single out one individual just because he happens to be alive ?

That must be the worst excuse ever.

[Caroline]

Yes, the devil is in the detail, cops don't tell one informant (J) what another informant (dad) had told them, especially since J was speaking over the phone, and not face to face with PC West. Not only that but cops hadn't investigated what dad had told them (3.26am) by that stage (3.36am, or until after the arrival of the occupants CA07 arriving at the general scene at around 3.48am. With this in mind, and the fact that J had finished his 3.36am call to PC West by the time the occupants of CA07 arrived in Pages lane, you tell me what cops knew regarding the fact that anyone had fired a shot, or been wounded by the time J called West at 3.36am, because J certainly didn't tell PC West that at 3.36am, and dad didn't tell cops that anyone had been shot by reference to ' dads' 3.26am phone log. The facts are 'that two phone logs' existed, one timed at 3.26am, and the other timed 3.36am. It was 'never part of the prosecutions case', either during the October, 1986 trial, or the failed 2002 apoeal, that the 'contents of both these logs', related to the same call. If you have got that idea inside your head, then I for one do not know where you have got idea from. In the first call (3.26am) the informant is clearly identified as being 'dad' from the farmhouse, because he blurts out, 'my daughter has got one of my guns, and is going crazy', as opposed to the informant in the 'other' phone log timed at 3.36am, which identifies the caller as 'J', because the contents clearly state, ' your sister has got the gun and is going berserk'. Nothing could be any clearer...

West would certainly have told Jeremy his father had called = we're not talking about 'informants'. I would like to see this argument stand up in any kind of appeal!

[mike tesko]

Yes, the devil is in the detail, cops don't tell one informant (J) what another informant (dad) had told them, especially since J was speaking over the phone, and not face to face with PC West. Not only that but cops hadn't investigated what dad had told them (3.26am) by that stage (3.36am, or until after the arrival of the occupants CA07 arriving at the general scene at around 3.48am. With this in mind, and the fact that J had finished his 3.36am call to PC West by the time the occupants of CA07 arrived in Pages lane, you tell me what cops knew regarding the fact that anyone had fired a shot, or been wounded by the time J called West at 3.36am, because J certainly didn't tell PC West that at 3.36am, and dad didn't tell cops that anyone had been shot by reference to ' dads' 3.26am phone log. The facts are 'that two phone logs' existed, one timed at 3.26am, and the other timed 3.36am. It was 'never part of the prosecutions case', either during the October, 1986 trial, or the failed 2002 apoeal, that the 'contents of both these logs', related to the same call. If you have got that idea inside your head, then I for one do not know where you have got idea from. In the first call (3.26am) the informant is clearly identified as being 'dad' from the farmhouse, because he blurts out, 'my daughter has got one of my guns, and is going crazy', as opposed to the informant in the 'other' phone log timed at 3.36am, which identifies the caller as 'J', because the contents clearly state, ' your sister has got the gun and is going berserk'. Nothing could be any clearer...

You obviously know very little about what 'really took place', because even when its put on a plate for you, your not able to see beyond the end of your nose. But I I will take pity on you one last time, hoping that you will see the errors of your ways...

J had nothing whatsoever to do with the contents contained in  Bonnets handwriting in 'that' 3.26am 'Communications Report'. PC West contacted Bonnet at 3.26am, and alerted Bonnet to those facts, ' my daughter has got hold of one of my guns'. There is 'nothing of any great significance mentioned in that log, which identifies J as the caller at 3.26am, 'nothing that anyone can rely on' to be able to say or prove that J was the informant at that time. But there is clear evidence that 'dad' made that (3.26am) to PC West, and that West contacted Bonnet relaying what dad had said at 3.26am. The only reference to the 'son' is added at the end of dads message in that Report. Let's look at that additional piece of information to see what it actually says:-

message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead . Mr Bamber  has a collection of shotguns, and .410s'...

[John]

Yes, the devil is in the detail, cops don't tell one informant (J) what another informant (dad) had told them, especially since J was speaking over the phone, and not face to face with PC West. Not only that but cops hadn't investigated what dad had told them (3.26am) by that stage (3.36am, or until after the arrival of the occupants CA07 arriving at the general scene at around 3.48am. With this in mind, and the fact that J had finished his 3.36am call to PC West by the time the occupants of CA07 arrived in Pages lane, you tell me what cops knew regarding the fact that anyone had fired a shot, or been wounded by the time J called West at 3.36am, because J certainly didn't tell PC West that at 3.36am, and dad didn't tell cops that anyone had been shot by reference to ' dads' 3.26am phone log. The facts are 'that two phone logs' existed, one timed at 3.26am, and the other timed 3.36am. It was 'never part of the prosecutions case', either during the October, 1986 trial, or the failed 2002 apoeal, that the 'contents of both these logs', related to the same call. If you have got that idea inside your head, then I for one do not know where you have got idea from. In the first call (3.26am) the informant is clearly identified as being 'dad' from the farmhouse, because he blurts out, 'my daughter has got one of my guns, and is going crazy', as opposed to the informant in the 'other' phone log timed at 3.36am, which identifies the caller as 'J', because the contents clearly state, ' your sister has got the gun and is going berserk'. Nothing could be any clearer...

Get real ffs.   Surely you don't honestly disbelieve for a second that had two calls been made in quick succession that PC West would have said to Jerry something like...Oh! Your dad just phoned us and reported the same matter so no need to hold on while I speak to Mr Bonnett? 

So laughable but predictable!  You notion of 'clear evidence' is certainly laughable. 

Nevill never phoned anyone because he couldn't...end off!

[Caroline]

Get real ffs.   Surely you don't honestly disbelieve for a second that had two calls been made in quick succession that PC West wouldn't have said to Jerry something like, Oh! Your dad just phoned us and reported the matter?

Of course he would!!

[mike tesko]

Of course he would!!

No, he wouldn't and in any event he himself was not questioned on this point because the contents of the original 3.26am Communication Report, was 'never disclosed' during the trial, or in time for the 2002 appeal...

[mike tesko]

You obviously know very little about what 'really took place', because even when its put on a plate for you, your not able to see beyond the end of your nose. But I I will take pity on you one last time, hoping that you will see the errors of your ways...

J had nothing whatsoever to do with the contents contained in  Bonnets handwriting in 'that' 3.26am 'Communications Report'. PC West contacted Bonnet at 3.26am, and alerted Bonnet to those facts, ' my daughter has got hold of one of my guns'. There is 'nothing of any great significance mentioned in that log, which identifies J as the caller at 3.26am, 'nothing that anyone can rely on' to be able to say or prove that J was the informant at that time. But there is clear evidence that 'dad' made that (3.26am) to PC West, and that West contacted Bonnet relaying what dad had said at 3.26am. The only reference to the 'son' is added at the end of dads message in that Report. Let's look at that additional piece of information to see what it actually says:-

message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead . Mr Bamber  has a collection of shotguns, and .410s'...

Now let's look at the contents which PC West jotted down in phone log 3.36am...

Where in the log recorded by PC West (himself) does it make any mention of his 'dad' having a collection of shotguns, and .410's?

[John]

Of course he would!!

Thank you Caroline, any idiot can see that.

[John]

Now let's look at the contents which PC West jotted down in phone log 3.36am...

The policeman was writing down what Bamber told him you Muppet.

[mike tesko]

Thank you Caroline, any idiot can see that.

Hope an idiot can see that in his own phone log, PC West does not make any mention of J's dad having a collection of shotguns and .410's, but that information appears as 'if' spontaneously noted in Bonnets log. Now can any idiot explain to me how such a 'glaring' inconsistency could have arisen?

[Caroline]

You obviously know very little about what 'really took place', because even when its put on a plate for you, your not able to see beyond the end of your nose. But I I will take pity on you one last time, hoping that you will see the errors of your ways...

J had nothing whatsoever to do with the contents contained in  Bonnets handwriting in 'that' 3.26am 'Communications Report'. PC West contacted Bonnet at 3.26am, and alerted Bonnet to those facts, ' my daughter has got hold of one of my guns'. There is 'nothing of any great significance mentioned in that log, which identifies J as the caller at 3.26am, 'nothing that anyone can rely on' to be able to say or prove that J was the informant at that time. But there is clear evidence that 'dad' made that (3.26am) to PC West, and that West contacted Bonnet relaying what dad had said at 3.26am. The only reference to the 'son' is added at the end of dads message in that Report. Let's look at that additional piece of information to see what it actually says:-

message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead . Mr Bamber  has a collection of shotguns, and .410s'...

This doesn't stand up to scrutiny Mike - I thought there might be something in it when I thought he was innocent but found it difficult to justify even then. Nevill didn't call the police because West would have told Jeremy his father had just called and he would have KNOWN Jeremy was innocent and because of that, other cops would have known the same, including Jones. This would have been the PERFECT excuse ti get the family off their back. They had no reason to frame Jeremy knowing he was innocent. The things that Jeremy has said, don't add up and if he was innocent, he would need to lie or exaggerate. He killed his family, tried to sell pictures of his dead sister, burned his parents clothes in the farm fire pit, sold family heirlooms to go on holiday and totally disrespected their memory. He doesn't deserve a second thought - he's guilty and will never get out.

[mike tesko]

The policeman was writing down what Bamber told him you Muppet.

Yes, I might be a Muppet, but at least I am not an idiot like you...

[Caroline]

No, he wouldn't and in any event he himself was not questioned on this point because the contents of the original 3.26am Communication Report, was 'never disclosed' during the trial, or in time for the 2002 appeal...

He was questioned at trial. People can argue that he called but it would never stand up to scrutiny. I told Jeremy this in my last reply to him, he wrote back saying that the logs we have seen, aren't the real logs. You couldn't make this up!

[mike tesko]

This doesn't stand up to scrutiny Mike - I thought there might be something in it when I thought he was innocent but found it difficult to justify even then. Nevill didn't call the police because West would have told Jeremy his father had just called and he would have KNOWN Jeremy was innocent and because of that, other cops would have known the same, including Jones. This would have been the PERFECT excuse ti get the family off their back. They had no reason to frame Jeremy knowing he was innocent. The things that Jeremy has said, don't add up and if he was innocent, he would need to lie or exaggerate. He killed his family, tried to sell pictures of his dead sister, burned his parents clothes in the farm fire pit, sold family heirlooms to go on holiday and totally disrespected their memory. He doesn't deserve a second thought - he's guilty and will never get out.

No, he did not kill anyone...

Where did Malcolm Bonnet get the information from about dad having a collection of shotguns and .410's to be able to include that information in his 3.26am log?