Timed references, anomaly - an adjustment may be necessary in pursuit of Accurac

[mike tesko]

Obviously, anything raised as a possibility is speculation. As you say, "the prosecution's case did not rely upon any of this" but instead relied on the jury not speculating in this way.

The prosecution obviously did not want to present evidence to the court, which potentially contradicted it's own stance! On the one hand, they were claiming that Neville would have called the police if his daughter was going berserk, and she had one of his guns, whilst on the other hand, the contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log, appears to confirm that Neville had called police, after all! Rivlin would have had a duty to present the facts contained in the two logs, as evidence that Neville had in fact called the police! In his closing address to the jury, Rivlin would surely have invited the jury to accept the contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log, as proof that Neville had called police! That his daughter was going berserk, and that his daughter had got one of his guns! Baring in mind, that this is what would have happened based upon the contents of both logs having been disclosed, and available to the defence team, and the court! There was no evidence called to suggest that the contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log, could not be a record of Neville Bambers call to police! At least, that is what Rivlin would have said! The truth is, because the prosecution did not call any evidence to prove that the contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log were not as a result of a call from Neville, Rivlin would have had a field day persuading the jury that Neville Bamber had made the 3.26am call to police!!!

[mike tesko]

The prosecution obviously did not want to present evidence to the court, which potentially contradicted it's own stance! On the one hand, they were claiming that Neville would have called the police if his daughter was going berserk, and she had one of his guns, whilst on the other hand, the contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log, appears to confirm that Neville had called police, after all! Rivlin would have had a duty to present the facts contained in the two logs, as evidence that Neville had in fact called the police! In his closing address to the jury, Rivlin would surely have invited the jury to accept the contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log, as proof that Neville had called police! That his daughter was going berserk, and that his daughter had got one of his guns! Baring in mind, that this is what would have happened based upon the contents of both logs having been disclosed, and available to the defence team, and the court! There was no evidence called to suggest that the contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log, could not be a record of Neville Bambers call to police! At least, that is what Rivlin would have said! The truth is, because the prosecution did not call any evidence to prove that the contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log were not as a result of a call from Neville, Rivlin would have had a field day persuading the jury that Neville Bamber had made the 3.26am call to police!!!

Based purely on the claim that both log contents had been disclosed and made available during the trial, it would have been open season for somebody like Rivlin, to ram down the throat's of the jury, that the prosecution had called no evidence to refute the suggestion that Neville had called police at 3.26am! They hadn't called any such evidence because they knew that the 3.26am call had been made by Neville Bamber!

[mike tesko]

Based purely on the claim that both log contents had been disclosed and made available during the trial, it would have been open season for somebody like Rivlin, to ram down the throat's of the jury, that the prosecution had called no evidence to refute the suggestion that Neville had called police at 3.26am! They hadn't called any such evidence because they knew that the 3.26am call had been made by Neville Bamber!

No doubt, the trial judge, would have also been duty bound, to inform the jury in his summing up address, that there existed two conflicting telephone records, one timed at 3.26am, the other timed at 3.36am. The first recorded in the hand writing of Malcom Bonnett. The second recorded in the hand writing of 'PC West. The former written in language befitting what Neville Bamber would have said, if indeed he had called the police! The latter written in language befitting what Jeremy had told PC West!  There was no evidence called by, or relied upon by the prosecution case, to suggest that the 3.26am log was not a true record of Neville Bambers call to police. The facts are, that in the absence of any evidence which prevents that call having been made by Neville Bamber, that you the jury must accept that Neville Bamber did call the police! If, members of the jury, Neville Bamber did call the police, you can be sure that he told the police that his daughter was going berserk, and that his daughter had got one of his guns! If Neville Bamber told police that, then does that not provide positive proof that Neville's adopted son, Jeremy (the defendant) has been truthful in reporting to police himself afterwards, similar facts already reported by Neville Bamber in his 3.26am call to police? Neville Bambers daughter going berserk, and having possession of one of his guns, might be conclusive proof that Sheila Caffell might have shot the other victims!!!

[Steve_uk]

No doubt, the trial judge, would have also been duty bound, to inform the jury in his summing up address, that there existed two conflicting telephone records, one timed at 3.26am, the other timed at 3.36am. The first recorded in the hand writing of Malcom Bonnett. The second recorded in the hand writing of 'PC West. The former written in language befitting what Neville Bamber would have said, if indeed he had called the police! The latter written in language befitting what Jeremy had told PC West!  There was no evidence called by, or relied upon by the prosecution case, to suggest that the 3.26am log was not a true record of Neville Bambers call to police. The facts are, that in the absence of any evidence which prevents that call having been made by Neville Bamber, that you the jury must accept that Neville Bamber did call the police! If, members of the jury, Neville Bamber did call the police, you can be sure that he told the police that his daughter was going berserk, and that his daughter had got one of his guns! If Neville Bamber told police that, then does that not provide positive proof that Neville's adopted son, Jeremy (the defendant) has been truthful in reporting to police himself afterwards, similar facts already reported by Neville Bamber in his 3.26am call to police? Neville Bambers daughter going berserk, and having possession of one of his guns, might be conclusive proof that Sheila Caffell might have shot the other victims!!!

There's no doubt that a call from Nevill to Police or Jeremy that morning would render the conviction unsafe. The problem the Defence has is that nobody in authority is admitting there has been a cover- up.

[mike tesko]

There's no doubt that a call from Nevill to Police or Jeremy that morning would render the conviction unsafe. The problem the Defence has is that nobody in authority is admitting there has been a cover- up.

The contents of both message logs, Bonnetts log 3.26am recorded in a manner befitting it having been passed by none other than Neville Bamber himself. A second message log created by PC West 3.36am which recorded what Jeremy told him! During the trial the defence were dishonestly deprived of the contents in both logs! The defence were led to believe that the only issue relating to PC West receiving Jeremy's call was one of timing, not the contents of the other log timed at 3.26am created by Malcom Bonnett! PC West was taken to task by Rivlin regarding the contents of his 3.36am log and his witness statement which did not match! He was not questioned about the contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log! This was because Rivlin did not have sight of the earlier log, otherwise he would have taken West to task over it! Rivlin would have been able to put it to PC West had he known about the contents of Bonnetts log, that there were thus three different sources containing different contents regarding what Jeremy told him. One version in his 3.36am message log, a second version in his 13th September Witness statement, and a third version contained in Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log! This gets more serious by the minute! I don't think those in the guilty camp realise the implications surrounding the existence of these two message logs, and the claim at such a late stage that both logs relate to the same call! If that were true, then we have three different versions of what Jeremy spoke to PC west about! What did PC West record in his pocketbook of the event? So, potentially four different accounts of what Jeremy told PC West, or dare I say it, a handful of different accounts!!!

[mike tesko]

The contents of both message logs, Bonnetts log 3.26am recorded in a manner befitting it having been passed by none other than Neville Bamber himself. A second message log created by PC West 3.36am which recorded what Jeremy told him! During the trial the defence were dishonestly deprived of the contents in both logs! The defence were led to believe that the only issue relating to PC West receiving Jeremy's call was one of timing, not the contents of the other log timed at 3.26am created by Malcom Bonnett! PC West was taken to task by Rivlin regarding the contents of his 3.36am log and his witness statement which did not match! He was not questioned about the contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log! This was because Rivlin did not have sight of the earlier log, otherwise he would have taken West to task over it! Rivlin would have been able to put it to PC West had he known about the contents of Bonnetts log, that there were thus three different sources containing different contents regarding what Jeremy told him. One version in his 3.36am message log, a second version in his 13th September Witness statement, and a third version contained in Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log! This gets more serious by the minute! I don't think those in the guilty camp realise the implications surrounding the existence of these two message logs, and the claim at such a late stage that both logs relate to the same call! If that were true, then we have three different versions of what Jeremy spoke to PC west about! What did PC West record in his pocketbook of the event? So, potentially four different accounts of what Jeremy told PC West, or dare I say it, a handful of different accounts!!!

Some people wouldn't know the truth if it hit them bang in the face!

[mike tesko]

...

[lookout]

There's no doubt that a call from Nevill to Police or Jeremy that morning would render the conviction unsafe. The problem the Defence has is that nobody in authority is admitting there has been a cover- up.

 The truth will out ! How long did it take Duckenfield and his mob ??

[Caroline]

There's no doubt that a call from Nevill to Police or Jeremy that morning would render the conviction unsafe. The problem the Defence has is that nobody in authority is admitting there has been a cover- up.

Because there hasn't.

[mike tesko]

It was on this very same date (6th September, 1985) that Robert Woodwis Boutflour visited ACC Peter Simpson!!!

Odd, that police including the Chief Constable, Bunyard, and ACC Simpson had just been told by Detective Superintendent Kenneally that as 'a result of his review of the investigation' at that time, that Sheila Caffell was responsible!

[mike tesko]

Because there hasn't.

But, there has been!

[mike tesko]

It was on this very same date (6th September, 1985) that Robert Woodwis Boutflour visited ACC Peter Simpson!!!

Odd, that police including the Chief Constable, Bunyard, and ACC Simpson had just been told by Detective Superintendent Kenneally that as 'a result of his review of the investigation' at that time, that Sheila Caffell was responsible!

This is the bit I don't fully understand, I mean Supt' Kenneally carries out a review of the investigation into the five deaths, and he makes a report of his findings to the Chief Constable, and the Assistant Chief Constable, that everything points to Sheila Caffell being responsible, and yet ACC Simpson is pressurised by Robert Boutflour (or threatened) to appoint Mick Ainsley to carry out a full new investigation (SC/786/85) on the same day, with Jeremy Bamber as the chief suspect!

I mean, what did Robert Boutflour say to Simpson that was so compelling, that it forced Simpson into action?

[mike tesko]

Didn't the police already have the silencer with blood upon it?

[mike tesko]

Didn't the police already have the silencer with blood upon it?

Then again, that was only one of the two silencers at the heart of this case, wasn't it!

Peter Eaton handed the first silencer over to DS 'Jones' on evening of 12th August 1985, his wife, Ann Eaton, handed over the second silencer to DC Oakley on the 11th September 1985 - that's the handing over of two different silencers, one in August, the other September 1985!

[mike tesko]

Police didn't physically hand back the first silencer to the Eatons, so where did Ann Eaton get the second silencer from?