Significance of two double marked bullet cases, found in kitchen?

[Jerry]

By Jeremy's own statement the call HE made to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes including the time he was kept on hold.

Jeremy didn't specify 10-11 minutes in his statement, and the police logs don't show how long his call lasted.

The original and only call was timed by CD at 3.26 and the report reissued by another officer at 3.36

The original call identified that Mr Bamber had a collection of shotguns and 410's

No, it's clear that MB (Malcolm Bonnett) at police headquarters logged a call received at 3:26 from an officer identified as CD(1990). That officer was Pc West, based at Chelmsford police station (a separate location that apparently had code CD), who logged receiving a call from Jeremy at 3:36. If there was only one call to the police, Pc West logged the time incorrectly, and was not reissuing a report already made.

MB's log refers to "Sheila Bamber, aged 26 yrs" whereas Pc West's log refers to Sheila's age as being 27. If there was only one call to the police, this discrepancy was a second mistake. MB's log also states "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber, after the phone went dead. Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410's." The message referred to needn't be the same message as that already logged on the form as received at 3:26.

If Nevill called the police at 3:26 and Jeremy separately called them at 3:36, some information about those calls has been suppressed, but the available logs are consistent.

The 3.26 log entry clearly states that the sender was non other than CD 1990 based at Chelmsford Police Station.  There is no log entry detailing any call from Mr Nevill Bamber.

The 3.26 log is a record by the control room of a developing incident.  Events and times would have been added throughout the morning, no great mystery there.

[mike tesko]

Jeremy's website is wrong about the call logs just as it is about many other facts and circumstances.

The original and only call was timed by CD at 3.26 and the report reissued by another officer at 3.36

The original call identified that Mr Bamber had a collection of shotguns and 410's

--------------------

Jeremy's websites are not wrong about the calls - the first phone log timed at 3:26am, is recorded in three main sections, and it is not clear to which section the reference of "Exchange Line" is referring?, whereas, in the second log, timed at 3:36am, all the message is continuos, except for the last bit where it says that 5 persons killed, CID Dealing...

Furthermore...

There is something odd when you look at both phone logs side by side?

When you look at the phone log containing the details about Ralph Bambers call to the police timed at 3:26am, you can see evidence that something has been copied onto the reverse, but when you look at and examine the other phone log containing Jeremy's details, no such reverse duplication exists - this suggests that something was copied onto the reverse of the log timed at 3:26am, or that its contents were copied onto the back of the other log (3;36am), in which case, the contents shown in 3:36am, came into existence before the contents of 3:26am, thus proving or establishing that the 3:26am klog details were merged with the 3:36am log details, despite the fact that each log supposedly came into existence at different parts of the police station, and by two different persons...

It appears that someone has copied the log details of one (3:26am) onto the reverse of the other (3:36am) to try and make them appear to refer to the same matter, as explained by both logs, but a close study of its contents reveals that this may have been part of a deception to cover up for the possibility or fact that Ralph Bamber did call the police from whf, before Jeremy had done...

Details in log 3:26am, has three main sections, and is obviously a fragmented record of different stages of the unfolding drama at whf and elsewhere, whereas, the log in 3:36am, appears in the main to be detail of Jeremy's call reporting what his father had told him over the phone...

[mike tesko]

Note the fragmentary nature of the three messages recorded in log 3:26am, under the heading "TEXT OF MESSAGES"

[mike tesko]

Whilst on the other hand, the main theme of log timed at 3:36am, under heading of "MESSAGE / REPORT", appears to only have one general theme:-

[mike tesko]

Someone has photocopied the contents of one log, onto the reverse of the other, in an attempt to make both logs a reference top the same call - and this was done at a later date, not necessarily at or by the time of Jeremy Bambers trial...

[Hartley]

I notice the sender and receiver sections of the logs have been cropped out this time.

[clifford]

I notice the sender and receiver sections of the logs have been cropped out this time.

Welcome back Hartley.

[Roch]

I notice the sender and receiver sections of the logs have been cropped out this time.

Welcome back Hartley.

Seconded 

[mike tesko]

I notice the sender and receiver sections of the logs have been cropped out this time.

------------

Fact is, in the phone log timed at 3:26am, there must have been at least three different occasions when details were sent, and received, so your point is?

[Hartley]

I notice the sender and receiver sections of the logs have been cropped out this time.

------------

Fact is, in the phone log timed at 3:26am, there must have been at least three different occasions when details were sent, and received, so your point is?

My point is that the logs clearly state that the sender and receiver of one call log was Jeremy and West, and the second call log very clearly indicates it was between West and Bonnett.

I'm open to the idea of the defences scenario in which Nevill called the police, however unless you can explain the sender and receiver noted on the logs, these logs do not refer to that alleged call.

[Hartley]

It's a good job I'm not cynical because if I was I might have thought that the sender and receiver had been cropped off in an attempt to mislead.

[mike tesko]

I notice the sender and receiver sections of the logs have been cropped out this time.

------------

Fact is, in the phone log timed at 3:26am, there must have been at least three different occasions when details were sent, and received, so your point is?

My point is that the logs clearly state that the sender and receiver of one call log was Jeremy and West, and the second call log very clearly indicates it was between West and Bonnett.

I'm open to the idea of the defences scenario in which Nevill called the police, however unless you can explain the sender and receiver noted on the logs, these logs do not refer to that alleged call.

------------------

Er, if you look at phone log, timed at 3:26am, the body of the messages appears to come from three separate sources, or more, yet the sender receiver details only provide one source, for one of those events. There must have been different senders for each part of the messages, or is it your suggestion that the same sender passed all the messages, no matter which format or at what time these were received?

You see, the problem is that each part of the collective messages recorded on that log, are not, is not identified, so we are left to guess who said what to whom, and when? Obviously, all the different parts of the message as shown in log 3:26am, did not get passed or recorded at 3:26am, but must have been passed at a later time or occasion?

Do you understand the point I am trying to make?

[Hartley]

Yes I do, however there is no indication that Ralph called the police whatsoever, the entire theory is based on the words 'father' and 'daughter' and nothing more, in addition to this, do you have Wests and Bonnetts witness statements or court transcriptions of their evidence and cross examinations. Surely that would clear this up?

[Reader]

... the entire theory is based on the words 'father' and 'daughter' and nothing more,

That's incorrect. The theory is also supported by the time discrepancy and the discrepancy over Sheila's age.

[Hartley]

... the entire theory is based on the words 'father' and 'daughter' and nothing more,

That's incorrect. The theory is also supported by the time discrepancy and the discrepancy over Sheila's age.

Not really. Yes they are discrepancies, but they do not indicate that Ralph called the police any more than they indicate that Kermit the frog called them.