In Conversation .......

[mike tesko]

The cover up has run its course! The cat is now we'll and truly out of the bag!

During the trial, and at the appeal hearing, it was presented as just a case of PC West recording the wrong time of Jeremy's call! But now out of the glare of court proceedings it is being argued that the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log, and PC Wests 3.36am log are records of the only call that was made by Jeremy!  Funny how this arguement was not aired during the 1986 trial, or the 2002 appeal hearing!

[notsure]

I'm not expecting you to phone me tonight, so when you don't phone me there'll be no reason for me to make a statement saying you haven't phoned me.

Thanks Jane for bringing some humour, that tickled me. Although I can't see why his name wasn't used , it's all very odd.

[mike tesko]

The cover up has run its course! The cat is now we'll and truly out of the bag!

During the trial, and at the appeal hearing, it was presented as just a case of PC West recording the wrong time of Jeremy's call! But now out of the glare of court proceedings it is being argued that the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log, and PC Wests 3.36am log are records of the only call that was made by Jeremy!  Funny how this arguement was not aired during the 1986 trial, or the 2002 appeal hearing!

Under cross examination, PC West could not be sure which of the two timings was correct! Only one could be!

Imagine how confused PC West and everybody else would have been if the contents of both logs had been available during the trial for consideration! How could Malcom Bonnett record the details of Jeremy's call at 3.26am, if Jeremy had not telephoned police until 3.36am!!

Surely, if the contents of both logs had been available during the trial, PC West would not have been so unsure about which time was right, if the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log was a recording of Jeremy's call, not Neville Bambers call!

[Jane]

Thanks Jane for bringing some humour, that tickled me. Although I can't see why his name wasn't used , it's all very odd.

My pleasure, Notsure Re HIS? name not being used. If it's Nevill to whom you refer, why would his name be used other than as the person alleged to have called Jeremy?

[mike tesko]

Under cross examination, PC West could not be sure which of the two timings was correct! Only one could be!

Imagine how confused PC West and everybody else would have been if the contents of both logs had been available during the trial for consideration! How could Malcom Bonnett record the details of Jeremy's call at 3.26am, if Jeremy had not telephoned police until 3.36am!!

Surely, if the contents of both logs had been available during the trial, PC West would not have been so unsure about which time was right, if the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log was a recording of Jeremy's call, not Neville Bambers call!

The prosecution would almost certainly have made great play on the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log if it was a written record of Jeremy's call! There would have been no room for error or mistake, because how could Bonnett have made his log10 minutes before PC West received his call from Jeremy?

The contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log were not available during the trial on that footing because the contents in no way, shape or form, could be presented as a true record of what Jeremy told PC West, because it was a record of Neville Bambers call!!

[mike tesko]

Police / prosecution did not seek to rely upon the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log in the timing argument of PC Wests call from Jeremy, because to have done so would have alerted everybody who might need to know that Neville Bamber did call police himself, prior to Jeremy also calling them!

[mike tesko]

One thing everyone can agree on, was that only the timing of Jeremy's call to PC West was in issue during the trial (1986) and at the appeal (2002), not the differences between the contents of Bonnetts 3.26am, and Wests 3.36am logs!!

[mike tesko]

Let's not lose sight of the fact, that it was part of the prosecutions case, that if Neville Bambers daughter had got one of his guns, and had gone berserk that he would have telephoned the police, not Jeremy!

Well, not only did Neville phone Jeremy, but the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am message log show that he also telephoned the police! Hence why it's contents never became an issue either during the trial, or the subsequent appeal!

[mike tesko]

Your not telling me that had the contents of the 3.26am Bonnett message log been disclosed and available during the 1986 trial, and the 2002 appeal hearing, that defence counsel, the trial judge, and the appellate court which sat in judgement would not have picked up on it, and made comment about it?

[mike tesko]

Your not telling me that had the contents of the 3.26am Bonnett message log been disclosed and available during the 1986 trial, and the 2002 appeal hearing, that defence counsel, the trial judge, and the appellate court which sat in judgement would not have picked up on it, and made comment about it?

If Neville Bambers daughter had got hold of one of his guns, and she had gone berserk, and Neville Bamber had called the police, there would surely have been a record of this fact! The contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am message log is that record, as distinct as the 3.36am record of Jeremy's call to PC West recorded in the other message log!!

[mike tesko]

The court which tried Jeremy Bamber was deceived regarding this matter! The appellate court which rejected his appeal in 2002 were also deceived regarding the same issue!

Ponder the following - remember how during the appeal judgement the appellate court raised concerns about how the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the incident at the farmhouse before Jeremy had called the police? Well, how could that have been a mystery to these so called learned people if the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am message log had been disclosed by that stage, on the footing that the details within were a true record of what Jeremy had told PC West, who had in turn spoken to Malcom Bonnett?

There would have been no mystery!

But, as we have seen even the appellate court was deceived in this matter!

[mike tesko]

How many people think that the contents of Malcom Bonnetts (3.26am) message log were disclosed during the 1986 trial, or by the time of the 2002 appeal, and that defence counsel did not take the opportunity to state that Neville Bamber did call the police after all!

[mike tesko]

How many people think that the contents of Malcom Bonnetts (3.26am) message log were disclosed during the 1986 trial, or by the time of the 2002 appeal, and that defence counsel did not take the opportunity to state that Neville Bamber did call the police after all!

If the contents of the Bonnett log had been made available to the defence, the court, and the jury, the prosecution would have been hard pressed trying to convince everybody or anyone that the information contained within was a record of what Jeremy told police, and not what Neville Bamber had told them!

I can picture it now in my mind's eye, defence counsel raising to his feet at the commencement of his closing speech to the jury - ' Ladies and Gentlemen, may I ask you to please pay attention to what has been a significant feature of the prosecutions case. Something which no doubt the learned judge will direct you upon regarding the issue of why didn't Neville Bamber call the police himself, if as the prosecution in this case allege, that Neville Bambers daughter had got hold of one of his guns, and she had gone berserk? Indeed, members of the jury, it has not been part of the defence in this matter that he had not made such a call to the police! The fact is, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that not only would Neville Bamber have made such a call, but he did make such a call! Not only did he make that call, but a record was kept by Malcom Bonnet, a record timed at 3.26am of Nevill Bambers call, 'my daughter has got hold of one of my guns', and 'she has gone berserk'!!

[mike tesko]

Why did the prosecution in this case, introduce the claim that if Neville Bambers daughter had got hold of one of his guns, and she had gone berserk, that he would have called police, and the very evidence proving the opposite argument have been disclosed to all parties to the court proceedings, and nobody batted an eye lid at the contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am log?

[mike tesko]

The contents of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am message log is capable of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Sheila Caffell was responsible for four of the deaths that took place, after 3.26am. Since, if Neville made that call to police, then obviously he had not been already shot dead by that stage! Furthermore, there was no mention in Neville's call that anybody else in the family had been shot either by that stage! The shootings, and the killings must have occurred after Neville had called police at 3.26am, and not beforehand!