The call from Jeremy was received at 3.26 and the despatch from the control room was made at 3.36. No mystery, no conspiracy just plain logic.
Jerry,I would agree with you here without doubt.That is exactly how it appears to me.However,if it is so that it is just "plain logic" as you put it,then why have JB's defence team deciphered it as something totally different?We have to remember that lawyers etc,are highly intelligent people.Surely they must have more experience of police logs than us ordinary laypeople,or have viewed further evidence to support their theory,to have come to that decision? Does that make sense?
It makes some sense certainly tyler. I would not agree however with your carte blanche comment that all lawyers are intelligent people and I am sure many would agree. Jeremy's defence team deciphered it in the way that Mike and others who support a not guilty scenario also choose to do so. Twisting the evidence to accommodate self proclaiming fantasies does not in my experience constitute proper investigative work.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence that Nevill phoned anyone, let alone the police. It is without doubt that the poor guy heard the intruder and confronted him only to be shot and then brutally beaten with the rifle thus the injuries to his arms. He was then shot again and mortally wounded.
... Two different logs, one timed at 3.36am and the other timed at 3.26am, contents in both inconsistant with information in it being received from same person, since, Shiela was Ralph Bambers daughter, she was not Jeremy Bambers daughter, but his sister. In one of the logs, caller refers to daughter having got one of my guns, whereas, in the other version, sister has got the gun - despite what some have said about the disclosure of both logs at the time of the trial, fact is such a suggestion is misleading, since, if such disclosure took place as alleged, there woukd almost certainly have sparked off an intense debate and argument, in the presense of the jury (which did not happen)...
Mike - you have identified the key point here which many seem to miss, whatever their opinion on this issue. Of course there can be a debate about the alternative interpretations of the logs, but the jury were not given an opportunity to consider this at all. If this material had been available at trial it is inconceivable that leading counsel for the defence would not have explored this thoroughly in cross examination and dealt with it again in his closing speach to the jury. The judge would also have referred to it in his summing up to the jury. The fact that this did not happen is the clearest evidence that this material was not disclosed fully to the defence as it should have been and that in itself is a proper ground of appeal.
... Yes, especially considering that the prosecution were alleging that Jeremy made up the detail about receiving a phone call - defense counsel, Mr Rivlin, QC, would have presumeably had a field day, and wasting very little time, in drawing to the attention of the court, the very matters being spoken about on this thread. No doubt, he would have milked it for all it was worth, and as you rightly say, the trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, would almost certainly have weighed in, with his penneth as part of his summing up. It is not clear which way the jury would have favoured these conflicting interpretations from both sides, but what does appear to be somewhat significant is that there was no disclosure of the second phone log, timed at 3.26am, and therefore, no opporttnity for Jeremy or his legal team to rely upon it, as part of his defence...
