Standard Chelmsford police phone call procedure in 1985.

[Caroline]

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"

It didn't need to be, he read from it. Had the defence wished them to see it, they could have asked.

[guest2181]

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.

When Chaplin took over, he became call sign CG32 (I think).

It's possible that part of the log is in the 'Logs' library thread. Depending on whether the sender or receiver filled out the form.

[Caroline]

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.

Just like the transcript posted by Bill Robertson. People in the past have questioned which log was shown to the jury (Bonnett's) OR if the jury did actually see it at all. Had we have this statement, this could have been settled ages ago. When I first posted that it was Bonnett's log that was shown to the jury, I was told I had made a mistake  . I doubt we even have half of the trial documents posted on this site but that doesn't mean they have been withheld from the defence - just from us!

[guest2181]

Just like the transcript posted by Bill Robertson. People in the past have questioned which log was shown to the jury (Bonnett's) OR if the jury did actually see it at all. Had we have this statement, this could have been settled ages ago. When I first posted that it was Bonnett's log that was shown to the jury, I was told I had made a mistake  . I doubt we even have half of the trial documents posted on this site but that doesn't mean they have been withheld from the defence - just from us!

Yes, Mike originally started posting documents to simply reinforce his posts, either on here or on the old sleuthing site. We've simply collected them all together in one place and started using them against him. 

Mike has also recently posted that he has a box of 50,000 documents, most of which he has not even looked at.

[Caroline]

Yes, Mike originally started posting documents to simply reinforce his posts, either on here or on the old sleuthing site. We've simply collected them all together in one place and started using them against him. 

Mike has also recently posted that he has a box of 50,000 documents, most of which he has not even looked at.

Perhaps (if he has it), Mike would be kind enough to post it?

[Reader]

Apparently, confusion arose because the defence had a copy of Bonnet's Communications form that had a log of some kind copied onto the back of it. Essex police were asked for all of that log, which eventually (it took a court order to get it released) turned out to be quite long. Also, direct enquiries found that Rivlin and the trial judge (Drake) had no recollection of having seen all of that log. Unfortunately, the defence didn't ask for or get their own copy of Pc West's log that Pc West had quoted a few parts of during the trial. Had they done so, it would have been given a court exhibit number, as Bonnett's form was, and provided to the jury. Oddly, slightly different versions of Pc West's message form came to exist.

[guest2181]

Unfortunately, the defence didn't ask for or get their own copy of Pc West's log that Pc West had quoted a few parts of during the trial. Had they done so, it would have been given a court exhibit number, as Bonnett's form was, and provided to the jury.

I'm not overly familiar with the processes in place in 1986 for recording the court exhibits.

Bonnets log is listed as court exhibit No. 29.

West's statement dated 8th August is given court exhibit No. 31. In this statement he refers to his log having been given the police evidence reference MJW/1.

Whilst West's log doesn't appear to have been given a court exhibit reference, I don't think it is realistic that we can say that it therefore wasn't available to the defence.

The defence would have had every opportunity to have requested the document, given the fact that it was read from in court and was listed in a statement which was given a court exhibit reference.

I don't think it is realistic to claim that West's log was kept from the defence.

[Caroline]

I'm not overly familiar with the processes in place in 1986 for recording the court exhibits.

Bonnets log is listed as court exhibit No. 29.

West's statement dated 8th August is given court exhibit No. 31. In this statement he refers to his log having been given the police evidence reference MJW/1.

Whilst West's log doesn't appear to have been given a court exhibit reference, I don't think it is realistic that we can say that it therefore wasn't available to the defence.

The defence would have had every opportunity to have requested the document, given the fact that it was read from in court and was listed in a statement which was given a court exhibit reference.

I don't think it is realistic to claim that West's log was kept from the defence.

I agree - in fact, it's unreasonable.

[guest2181]

I agree - in fact, it's unreasonable.

There are a huge number of documents that were not listed as a court exhibit.

Is it being argued that all the documents that were not made court exhibits, were withheld from the defence?

[Reader]

It's possible that Pc West's log had been given to the defence, but overlooked. It seems to have been found or obtained early in 2004, but I don't recall anything to suggest that the police released it then, as distinct from it having simply been found amongst the defence documents. Perhaps mike tesko can remember more.

[Caroline]

There are a huge number of documents that were not listed as a court exhibit.

Is it being argued that all the documents that were not made court exhibits, were withheld from the defence?

I wouldn't be surprised.

[Samson]

On the subject of phone calls, I am unclear about the proof the prosecution had that Nevill did not call the police. If he called the police Jeremy is innocent.

Hermann posted this on IA

...

The timings of the logs are particularly important in this case because a police car was sent to the scene at 03:35 which is a minute before Jeremy's call to PC West is logged. This makes perfect sense if we assume that Nevill called the police at 03:26 but is completely illogical if only Jeremy called at 03:36. They couldn't have sent the car before Jeremy called. So they have to say that PC West mistimed the log for there to be a case against Bamber. It was accepted by the court that West's log was mistimed and should be recorded as 03:26.

But Bonnett's log came to the attention of Bamber's defence years later. It is timed at 03:26 Bonnett's log records what looks like a call from Nevill Bamber which has "daughter gone berserk. She has got hold of one of my guns." It has different information to West's log of Jeremy's call such as a different age of Sheila. Jeremy gave Sheila's age as 27 Bonnett's log has 26, suggesting it came from another person. Further, Jeremy said nothing to West about a collection of guns but said "the gun".

...

Please someone supply the proof that this post has factual errors, or it must be accepted as another plank in the innocence of Bamber.

[David1819]

On the subject of phone calls, I am unclear about the proof the prosecution had that Nevill did not call the police. If he called the police Jeremy is innocent.

Please someone supply the proof that this post has factual errors, or it must be accepted as another plank in the innocence of Bamber.

Jeremy - West 3.23am

West - Bonnet 3.26am

West - Saxby(Witham) 3.30am

West - Jeremy 3.33am

Bonnet - Witham 3.35am

CA7  - Bonnet - 3.48am

Notes
West puts JB on hold - 3.25am
West takes JB off hold - 3.33am


West makes two calls while Jeremy is on hold. (Wests trial transcript)
Bonnet receives a call from West at 3.26am (Bonnets statement)
Witham receives a call from West at 3.30am (Saxby's statement)

West testified that both these calls lasted approximately 3 minutes. This meshes in with the statements of Bonnet and Saxby! West cannot have called Bonnet and Received JBs call at the same time. Thus the 3.26am has to be the time when the call from Jeremy was put on hold. So I can safely assume that West was sloppy with the 1st call and only notes the time at the end of the 1st conversation with JB rather than the beginning.

The time of 03.36am only seems to appear in the case documents after Mugford comes forward and things mysteriously appear from nowhere. I believe the 03.36am is a fabrication. This gives the impression of an emergency call from two people, This has in recent years led to speculation that two emergency calls were made that night. One being from Nevill. I don't believe such a call was made nor is there any sufficient evidence to prove such a call was made.

[Samson]

Jeremy - West 3.23am

West - Bonnet 3.26am

West - Saxby(Witham) 3.30am

West - Jeremy 3.33am

Bonnet - Witham 3.35am

CA7  - Bonnet - 3.48am

Notes
West puts JB on hold - 3.25am
West takes JB off hold - 3.33am


West makes two calls while Jeremy is on hold. (Wests trial transcript)
Bonnet receives a call from West at 3.26am (Bonnets statement)
Witham receives a call from West at 3.30am (Saxby's statement)

West testified that both these calls lasted approximately 3 minutes. This meshes in with the statements of Bonnet and Saxby! West cannot have called Bonnet and Received JBs call at the same time. Thus the 3.26am has to be the time when the call from Jeremy was put on hold. So I can safely assume that West was sloppy with the 1st call and only notes the time at the end of the 1st conversation with JB rather than the beginning.

The time of 03.36am only seems to appear in the case documents after Mugford comes forward and things mysteriously appear from nowhere. I believe the 03.36am is a fabrication. This gives the impression of an emergency call from two people, This has in recent years led to speculation that two emergency calls were made that night. One being from Nevill. I don't believe such a call was made nor is there any sufficient evidence to prove such a call was made.

Thanks David. I have always thought it more likely that Nevill called just Jeremy. Until the gun is actually fired, it is always extremely likely with a schizophrenic it will be deemed a threat that will be resolved somehow, hence the call to Jeremy.
It is difficult now 30 years on, to imagine a scene, with a gun, where the gun is deemed more a prop to make a point, than a weapon that will be ACTUALLY USED. We have the burden of hindsight to overcome, better think of a brand new hypothetical domestic scene where a firearm has never been used against a person, to see my point
This is generally my answer to those who implore us to say Nevill would never call Jeremy before disarming Sheila.

A further point is that unless Caroline is right, Sheila did not load the gun. Loading an empty gun has different connotations to picking up a loaded gun that is at hand.

[Adam]

I thought Bamber, Nevill and June left a fully loaded rifle sprawled across the kitchen.

Did Bamber say he took the bullets out of the rifle after returning from his unsuccessful rabbit hunt ? In that case Bamber, Nevill & June must have also left bullets lying around the kitchen for Sheila to take.

Bit strange that Bamber took the bullets out of a rifle but could not be bothered to put the rifle or bullets away.

What was Nevill doing while Sheila was loading ? He must have seen Sheila load the rifle otherwise he wouldn't ring Bamber because he feared danger.