Why didn't Taff Jones tell Bamber & the relatives about Nevill's call ?

[Reader]

Bonnett wrote "my guns" rather than "his guns", which is what one would expect if he'd been told Nevill's words to the police, as distinct from Nevill's words to Jeremy.

[Caroline]

Bonnett wrote "my guns" rather than "his guns", which is what one would expect if he'd been told Nevill's words to the police, as distinct from Nevill's words to Jeremy.

Again, you would have to ask Bonnett why he did that but, had Nevill called the police, it would mean the situation had escalated and the info on both logs is the same.

[David1819]

Bonnett wrote "my guns" rather than "his guns", which is what one would expect if he'd been told Nevill's words to the police, as distinct from Nevill's words to Jeremy.

If you read Bonnett's statement. Its clear that he got that information from West. Not Neville

The Yellow is important the red is very important. Read it carefully.

The 3.26am call was NOT Neville.

[Reader]

However, Pc West stated he called HQIR to find out which police station covered WHF. Bonnett makes no mention of that. In "the Yellow", he gave "had taken one of his guns", but he had logged "has got hold of one of my guns".

[guest7363]

However, Pc West stated he called HQIR to find out which police station covered WHF. Bonnett makes no mention of that. In "the Yellow", he gave "had taken one of his guns", but he had logged "has got hold of one of my guns".

As people relay a message to another person it can often get distorted, bad news certainly distracts people from doing what they have to do?  With messages especially telephone messages an eliment of Chinese Whispers can occur, same goes with radio messages passed down a chain of command.

[mike tesko]

If you read Bonnett's statement. Its clear that he got that information from West. Not Neville

The Yellow is important the red is very important. Read it carefully.

The 3.26am call was NOT Neville.

I disagree with this presentation - what becomes clear is that the contents of Malcom Bonnetts statement were made much later, at at time when the police were seeking to bring forward the time of Jeremy's 3.36am call to 3.26am! What also becomes clear, is that when Malcom Bonnett testified, the main body of that which we have since seen of his 3.26am, contained no information about Neville Bambers call, or the information about 'message passed by son of Mr Bamber after phone went dead, etc, etc, etc. No mention of contacting Inspector Tagrass at 4.12am, no mention of being contacted a lady operator at 3.56am, and no mention of Jeremy being deployed to the scene at all! The only detail recorded on that form being the time of 3.26am, and details of the deployment and arrival at the scene, of various police units!

[Reader]

As people relay a message to another person it can often get distorted,  . . .  Chinese Whispers can occur

That's why the police are trained not to adjust the wording they have been given.

[David1819]

However, Pc West stated he called HQIR to find out which police station covered WHF. Bonnett makes no mention of that. In "the Yellow", he gave "had taken one of his guns", but he had logged "has got hold of one of my guns".

Why would he?

[Reader]

Because it happened, assuming that Pc West did ask him which police station covered WHF.

[mike tesko]

The facts are clearly recorded, there was no mention of anything other than the time (3.26am) PC West contacted Malcom Bonnett, and how he subsequently deployed the occupants of CA07 to the incident at whf by 3.35am. This format was what constitutes Neville Bambers log during the trial, nothing more, nothing less!

Because if I am wrong, this means that the prosecution, the police, the trial judge Drake, Rivlin QC, and the jury, all must have known about the contents, 'daughter gone berserk', and 'my daughter has got hold of one of my guns', and none of them thought it might have been of some significance? What, from the prosecutions point of view it would have been significantly damaging to its own case! From the trial judges point of view, these were potentially facts of great significance capable of undermining the entire purpose of the prosecutions case, and from Rivlin QC's point of view, he would have thought all his birthdays had all come at once! From the juries perspective - they would have found Jeremy Bamber, ' Not Guilty'!!!

[guest7363]

That's why the police are trained not to adjust the wording they have been given.

I agree but it does happen and has happened.

[mike tesko]

Now, let's take a look at what a real Crown Court stamped document really looks like!

My case, followed by Bambers case - you decide which is a forgery!!!!

[mike tesko]

You don't need to be intelligent to see which of the two documents above have an authentic Crown Court stamped on it!

[mike tesko]

Why wasn't the  full content of Neville Bambers 3.26am call log brought to anybody attention who had involvement in this case? Just ask yourselves that very basic question! If the police didn't want to disclose those damning contents, and the prosecution did not want to disclose those damning comments, and if the trial judge Drake did not want to mention those damning comments, and Rivlin QC did not want to mention Neville Bambers comments, during the trial, to the jury or to the king of Timbuck two, why would Essex police feel it was necessary to inform the relatives of the same? I ask you?

They wouldn't, and they didn't!!!!

[lookout]

If you read Bonnett's statement. Its clear that he got that information from West. Not Neville

The Yellow is important the red is very important. Read it carefully.

The 3.26am call was NOT Neville.

I thought it was Neville who'd said about the guns which were kept,not Jeremy,as he didn't mention the guns until outside in the car when he wrote down a list of them for the officer.