Standard Chelmsford police phone call procedure in 1985.

[Adam]

Sorry I have to change my last post.

Reader has now said Bonnett was in fact recieving calls from the public. However these were only calls which were being put through by a 999 operative.

I wish this had been pointed out yesterday. There is a big difference between 'no calls' & 'calls being put through by a 999 operative'.

I look forward to the confirmation source.

[Bill Robertson]

The CT video says it was Nevill who got through to Bonnet. Although Bonnet says his log is from the call he received from West.

If it was standard practice for West to transfer calls from the public to officers such as Bonnet, I can't see where the CT are coming from. Must just be more properganda.

The commentary on the video has been misinterpreted. However, it is slightly misleading and could confuse someone who did not watch the subsequent explanation provided. But, the JB website is crystal clear on the issue.

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/nevill-s-call-to-police

Question: Why was the log referring to Jeremy’s call never shown to the jury?

"PC 1990 West at Chelmsford Police Station (CD) took both Nevill’s call and Jeremy’s call. Following Nevill’s call PC West relayed the information he had been given by Nevill to  Malcolm Bonnett, a civilian telephone operative, who worked in the Information room at HQ"

[Bill Robertson]

Sorry I have to change my last post.

Reader has now said Bonnett was in fact recieving calls from the public. However these were only calls which were being put through by a 999 operative.

I wish this had been pointed out yesterday. There is a big difference between 'no calls' & 'calls being put through by a 999 operative'.

I look forward to the confirmation source.

Bonnett said this himself in numerous statements and in the witness box.

[Adam]

The commentary on the video has been misinterpreted. However, it is slightly misleading and could confuse someone who did not watch the subsequent explanation provided. But, the JB website is crystal clear on the issue.

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/nevill-s-call-to-police

Question: Why was the log referring to Jeremy’s call never shown to the jury?

"PC 1990 West at Chelmsford Police Station (CD) took both Nevill’s call and Jeremy’s call. Following Nevill’s call PC West relayed the information he had been given by Nevill to  Malcolm Bonnett, a civilian telephone operative, who worked in the Information room at HQ"

Oh yes. The JB website.

There is nothing misleading in the video. It says Bonnett took Nevill's call.

This was impossible yesterday as Reader said Bonnett was not taking calls from the public. However this statement has now been drasically  amended by Reader,  & Bonnett was now recieving calls from the public. That were put through to him by a 999 operative.

However in the last few minutes Nevill's call has become impossible again. As Reader has said the CT are sticking to the claim that Nevill got directly through to Bonnett. Which is impossible unless it was like the Batman films where Nevill had a special hot line in the event of massacre attempts.

[Caroline]

Bonnett said this himself in numerous statements and in the witness box.

Although he probably did take 999 calls, I can see no mention of it in his statements.

[Reader]

You have to invent more logs for this scenario.

In his statement of 23 September 1985, Pc Saxby says "Ps Bews contacted Information Room and requested armed assistance and gave a situation report. He instructed me to keep an incident log, which I did."

[guest2181]

Yes, there would be additional logs. If you think the police never withhold logs, produce Pc Saxby's log that he stated he wrote while at the scene.

My goodness, I think I've actually got it!!!

Saxby stayed in the car, he really wanted to go off with his colleagues on their scouting exhibition, but the trouble was, he was weighed down by all the different logs that he had to carry and couldn't move!!!

Or maybe he just took a few notes down in his pocket book, either as he went, or recalled from memory later on. 

[guest2181]

My goodness, I think I've actually got it!!!

Saxby stayed in the car, he really wanted to go off with his colleagues on their scouting exhibition, but the trouble was, he was weighed down by all the different logs that he had to carry and couldn't move!!!

Or maybe he just took a few notes down in his pocket book, either as he went, or recalled from memory later on. 

Or he filled out log referenced ROS/1, which was taken over by Chaplin and referred to in both of their COLP notes. 

Seems a bit of a stretch for R to claim it's been withheld and use that as evidence of other things being withheld. There are many documents that have not found their way on to this forum, the most likely reason for that is that Mike hasn't posted them, either because he doesn't want to, or because he doesn't have them.

[Jane]

Or he filled out log referenced ROS/1, which was taken over by Chaplin and referred to in both of their COLP notes. 

Seems a bit of a stretch for R to claim it's been withheld and use that as evidence of other things being withheld. There are many documents that have not found their way on to this forum, the most likely reason for that is that Mike hasn't posted them, either because he doesn't want to, or because he doesn't have them.

Ooh! SILLY me! There was I thinking it was only the police who withheld information

[Caroline]

In his statement of 23 September 1985, Pc Saxby says "Ps Bews contacted Information Room and requested armed assistance and gave a situation report. He instructed me to keep an incident log, which I did."

And? Where would you imagine he would write such a log? He's have only had his pocket book. They had two logs of the same situation but who said his notes are missing?

[mike tesko]

And? Where would you imagine he would write such a log? He's have only had his pocket book. They had two logs of the same situation but who said his notes are missing?

There is no evidence that the two message logs relate to the same call! The prosecution had a duty to disclose or make available to the defence team, and the court any information which contradicted it's own case, for example, the prosecutions case that if Sheila Caffell, Neville's daughter had gone berserk, and she had got hold of one of his guns, that Neville would have called the police!!! Malcom Bonnets 3.26am log, contains evidence capable of challenging that proposition!

Both logs were not disclosed or made available to the defence team, or to the court, otherwise someone would have picked up on it! Nobody did, so that becomes clear! The prosecution would not have led with the statement, that Neville Bambers daughter had really gone berserk, and his daughter really had got hold of one of Neville Bambers gun,  that 'he would have phoned the police' , contradicts the suggestion, that both logs, including Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log, were not disclosed, or made available to the defence team, or to the court which tried the matter! What on the flip side seems apparent, is that the prosecution tried to 'pull a fast one' by 'hiding'  the contents of the 3.26am log, and the contents of the 3.36am log, alongside one another! They deliberately and I would suggest, 'dishonestly' did this, to enable themselves (prosecution) to create an edge over their opponents (defence), by a reliance upon the argument that if Neville Bambers daughter had gone berserk, and if Neville Bambers daughter had got hold of one of his guns, Neville Bamber would have phoned the police! Fact is, he did phone police, and fact is, that the contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log  support this 'fact'...

[Steve_uk]

There is no evidence that the two message logs relate to the same call! The prosecution had a duty to disclose or make available to the defence team, and the court any information which contradicted it's own case, for example, the prosecutions case that if Sheila Caffell, Neville's daughter had gone berserk, and she had got hold of one of his guns, that Neville would have called the police!!! Malcom Bonnets 3.26am log, contains evidence capable of challenging that proposition!

Both logs were not disclosed or made available to the defence team, or to the court, otherwise someone would have picked up on it! Nobody did, so that becomes clear! The prosecution would not have led with the statement, that Neville Bambers daughter had really gone berserk, and his daughter really had got hold of one of Neville Bambers gun,  that 'he would have phoned the police' , contradicts the suggestion, that both logs, including Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log, were not disclosed, or made available to the defence team, or to the court which tried the matter! What on the flip side seems apparent, is that the prosecution tried to 'pull a fast one' by 'hiding'  the contents of the 3.26am log, and the contents of the 3.36am log, alongside one another! They deliberately and I would suggest, 'dishonestly' did this, to enable themselves (prosecution) to create an edge over their opponents (defence), by a reliance upon the argument that if Neville Bambers daughter had gone berserk, and if Neville Bambers daughter had got hold of one of his guns, Neville Bamber would have phoned the police! Fact is, he did phone police, and fact is, that the contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log  support this 'fact'...

For Jeremy Bamber to have been convicted you would still have had Police lying on oath, just as they allegedly did in the Derek Bentley case, which was far more personal to them.

[Caroline]

For Jeremy Bamber to have been convicted you would still have had Police lying on oath, just as they allegedly did in the Derek Bentley case, which was far more personal to them.

That's right Steve, I will say again, Bamber just wasn't important enough for such a mass conspiracy.

[Reader]

Where would you imagine he would write such a log? He's have only had his pocket book.

Pc Saxby stated that Ps Bews asked him to write an incident log, which he did. Pc Saxby produced this log as a specific document, ROS/1, which wouldn't make sense if it had just been written in his pocketbook. Evidently, Pc Saxby did have available some separate notepad of some kind that he used for writing his incident log.

[guest2181]

Pc Saxby stated that Ps Bews asked him to write an incident log, which he did. Pc Saxby produced this log as a specific document, ROS/1, which wouldn't make sense if it had just been written in his pocketbook. Evidently, Pc Saxby did have available some separate notepad of some kind that he used for writing his incident log.

Yes, ROS/1 was handed over to PC Chaplin later that morning who continued to record the log.

I haven't seen it posted online, but that does not mean it has been withheld.