Quote from: Bill Robertson
The false report of an inaccurate clock in Chelmsford police station control room.
In August 1985 PC 1990 Michael West had just completed his two year probationary period. He was still relatively inexperienced and he was in the Control Room at Chelmsford police station when he received a telephone call from Jeremy Bamber. Subsequently, PC West found himself at the epicentre of a major controversy in the Jeremy Bamber prosecution.
During the trial of Jeremy Bamber it became apparent that there was a discrepancy between the time that PC West said he received a call from Jeremy Bamber, 03:36, and the time recorded by a civilian at Essex Police HQ for allegedly the same call at 03:26. The civilian in question, Mr Malcolm Bonnett, allegedly wrote a record of the telephone call at 03:26. The prosecution wished the 03:26 time to be the accepted ‘official’ version of events.
However, on three occasions PC West stated firmly that 03:36 was the time of the phone call from Jeremy Bamber:-
1. On the C1 incident log-sheet that he completed he wrote 03:36
2. In his statement made on 13 September 1985 he said that the call was at 03:36
3. In the witness box at the trial he stated verbally with conviction that 03:36 was the correct time
A further point on the time issue is that PC West stated at the trial and in his witness statement that immediately after his telephone conversation with Jeremy Bamber which started at 03:36 he arranged for the GPO (now BT) to test the phone line at WHF. PC West stated that the result of the line-test was received at 03:42. He recorded the time of the line-test result at 03:42 on the back of the C1 log-sheet. Therefore his conversation with Jeremy Bamber must have occurred at 03:36, not 03:26.
At the time of the Trial it appears that Jeremy’s defence ‘team’ did not appreciate the full import of the time difference recorded; when cross-examining PC West they did not seem to make too much fuss about the discrepancy.
The prosecution on the other hand did seem to realise that the ten minute time difference was significant and they arranged a subterfuge in order to enter the 03:26 time for the telephone call as ‘accepted’ fact. In effect they said that PC West had made an error in reading the time on a digital clock.
During his trial testimony and in his written witness statement PC West did not agree with this assertion but he has in effect been over-ruled based on testimony of another police officer, PC 1851 John Stephen Holtby-Smith who was acting as Sergeant at the pertinent time. Presumably, because Holtby-Smith temporarily outranked PC West his testimony was given precedence (which is illogical, but seems to have been the case).
Policemen do not always have to lie or commit perjury to give a completely misleading account to a Courtroom. A simple example of police duplicity in the Jeremy Bamber case is the testimony given with regard to the clocks in the Control Room at Chelmsford police station. For there was not just one clock; there were two.
The Prosecution tried to deny the fact of a telephone call from Jeremy Bamber to PC1990 Michael West at Chelmsford police station at 03:36 on 7th August 1985 by claiming to have evidence that the Control Room clock was incorrect ‘often’. By means of testimony from a single police officer, PC 1851 Holtby-Smith, the Jury was persuaded that PC West had misread the time.
The only evidence of the supposedly defective clock amounted to the opinion from Acting Sergeant John Stephen Holtby-Smith (PC 1851).
The ‘dodgy clock’ story, which evolved during the original trial and subsequent appeals process into ‘fact’, is a false construction.
What becomes apparent when the evidence is studied in detail is that there are two different clocks being referred to, enabling the police to construct a fabrication that could nevertheless be claimed to be true by both police officers giving evidence. For, in the Control Room at Chelmsford police station there were two clocks; one mounted on the wall and a digital clock on the console. It was the digital clock that PC West consulted. It was the wall-mounted clock that Holtby-Smith described as ‘unreliable’.
In his 13 September 1985 statement PC 1990 West stated:
"I noted all the above times by reference to the Control Room digital clock beside me about seven feet away"
PC West stated “beside me”. He was sitting down at the control room desk. The digital clock was beside him and about 7 feet away, clearly not on the wall.
PC 1851 Holtby-Smith said in his statement dated 26 September 1985:
“In the normal course of my duties, I very often have occasion to use and be in the Chelmsford Police Station control room.
The clock I always take notice of within this room is placed on the right hand exit door wall”.
Holtby-Smith also stated:
I have often had cause to notice that this particular clock rarely shows the correct time in relation to my own personal watch which is extremely accurate. In my opinion the control room wall clock rarely shows an accurate time and very often shows a time in variance to the correct time of anything up to five minutes, plus or minus.
Leaving aside the fact that we have no actual evidence that his personal watch is ‘extremely accurate’, he gave the opinion that the wall clock could be up to 5 minutes fast or slow, not the ten minutes which has passed into legend. Again, he states “this particular clock” which implies that it is not the only clock.
Holtby-Smith was clearly describing an entirely different clock to the one that PC West referred to.
Holtby-Smith did not state what type of clock he was looking at in the control room; had it been the digital clock in question and the sole clock in the control room then surely he would have mentioned it more specifically, i.e. he would have referred to it as ‘the Control Room clock’ instead he made reference to ‘this particular clock’.
So, another little example of deception in the evidence relating to the 03:36 phone call.
FACT: At 03:26 the situation at WHF was a domestic dispute; with no reported casualties
FACT: At 03:36 the situation at WHF was a domestic dispute; with no reported casualties
FACT: According to records made by PC West and Malcolm Bonnett, no communications occurred between 03:36 and 03:48 with any police vehicles
FACT: At 03:42 PC West received a report from BT that the telephone line at WHF was ‘busy’ i.e. engaged
FACT: At 03:48 the police arrived at Pages Lane and prepared for a siege
FACT: At 04:04 the FSU were withdrawn from Colchester before any report had been received from WHF (this was not broadcast until some 5 minutes later) in preparation for an armed siege
FACT: At 04:08 approximately Acting Inspector Targrass reported to Chief Superintendent Harris a “shooting incident” at WHF – before any report had been received from PS Bews
FACT: CA7 did not communicate any information from WHF until 04:09 – and there was still no report of any casualties or shots being fired
FACT: At 03:48 when CA7 containing PS Bews, PCs Saxby and Myall arrived at Pages Lane they parked 200 yards distant
FACT: Between 03:48 and 04:05 approximately CA7 and Jeremy Bamber waited for around 15 minutes before PS Bews and PC Myall approached WHF with Jeremy Bamber out in front
FACT: PC Saxby remained at the police car even though, in theory, there was nothing for him to do
FACT: PC Saxby was said to be waiting for further messages – where were they going to come from if Jeremy Bamber was already with them?
FACT: They stopped 100 feet from the Farmhouse and crouched behind a wall.
FACT: They saw that the kitchen lights were on
FACT: Jeremy Bamber pleaded with PS Bews to enter the property
FACT: PS Bews refused to go any closer than 100 feet
FACT: PS Bews refused to even consider trying to rescue anyone inside the Farmhouse
FACT: Essex Police abandoned the occupants of WHF to their fate
FACT: PS Bews ran away when they saw a figure in a bedroom window
FACT: CA5 with PCs Cracknell and Norcup took 50 minutes to complete an 18 mile journey to WHF on deserted roads, in an Area Car equipped with blue lights and two-tone siren. A journey that can be done in between 15-20 minutes.
FACT: None of 5 police officers who initially attended the scene approached the Farmhouse
FACT: None of the 5 police officers who attended WHF in CA5 or CA7 faced any disciplinary charges for dereliction of duty, despite the FACT that they did not attempt any rescue or even consider any rescue options
All of the above facts can be found in witness statements contained in the archive section of this website.
I would like you to consider some further facts please.
FACT: When PC Michael West received a telephone call at Chelmsford police station prior to 03:30 on 7th August, (around 03:26), PCs Cracknell and Norcup were in the control room with him
FACT: PC West did not mention that PCs Cracknell or Norcup were in the control room with him in either of his two witness statements
FACT: PC Cracknell and PC Norcup heard whatever telephone conversation PC West had at approximately 03:26
FACT: As a result of hearing the telephone conversation that took place at 03:26 PCs Cracknell and Norcup discussed the content of the telephone call with PC West
FACT: As a result of their conversation with PC West, at 03:33 CA5 containing PCs Cracknell and Norcup commenced their journey to WHF from Chelmsford police station
FACT: Despite the point that the telephone call at 03:26 is highly controversial and subject to much dispute as to who the caller was (Nevill or Jeremy Bamber), Essex police have never asked PCs Cracknell or Norcup to divulge what they heard in the control room or indeed, to confirm that the caller was Jeremy Bamber.
FACT: PC West faced disciplinary charges over the falsification of an incident recording sheet. Even though PC West was in need of assistance, PCs Cracknell and Norcup did not come forward to support him or corroborate his version of events. I find this significant.
FACT: PC West in written evidence twice and after being questioned on oath at Jeremy’s trial, insisted that he received a telephone call from Jeremy Bamber at 03:36, not 03:26. He stated that he did not make a mistake in reading the time, despite what was subsequently reported
FACT: If PCs Cracknell and Norcup could confirm that it was Jeremy Bamber who called PC West at 03:26 rather than Nevill Bamber, they would be priceless witnesses for the prosecution – the FACT that they have not been required to give evidence is strongly suggestive that they in FACT heard a telephone call from Nevill Bamber, thus giving Jeremy Bamber an alibi.
FACT: All of this information is contained in witness statements in the archive section of the Bamber Forum website.
Once you have all these facts at your disposal you have to draw some conclusions. Inevitably one has to speculate somewhat, which is not a problem if speculation is based on facts. My conclusion is:
PCs Cracknell and Norcup know what was said to PC West at 03:26. They had a conversation with him; they must know whether it was Nevill or Jeremy Bamber who telephoned at 03:26. They have remained mute. If they could confirm that the call was from Jeremy Bamber they would have given evidence to that effect. This leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the 03:26 telephone call was from Nevill Bamber, which is exactly the impression given from looking at the documentary record made by Malcolm Bonnett at Essex Police HQ Information Room. “daughter gone berserk -has got hold of one of my guns”
Most damning of all, was the fact that Cracknell and Norcup had been issued with firearms and ammunition prior to the true timing of jeremy Bambers call to PC West at 3.36am!
