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

[clifford]

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?

There the problems lie Harters. By the time it ended up in court the police were confident that JB was guilty, so any logs would/could have been altered then.

[Roch]

... 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.

Re age of Daughter / Sister.  Hartley... I think the only choice you leave us for the source of this discrepancy is a police error, possibly due to the early hour / tiredness?

It seems the police on duty are 'all at sixes & sevens'

[mike tesko]

... 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.

....

Actually, there is no evidence that the details about the sender and receiver of these messages, related to any particular incident or event in it, since, if there were three or more events logged in the message form, timed at 3:26am, and two references in the other, now why couldn't all these different parts be documented in such a way as to leave little or no doubt at all, about who spoke to who, when and why, at different stages during that particular morning?

[Hartley]

Mike do you have West and Bonnetts statements?

[mike tesko]

Mike do you have West and Bonnetts statements?

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

Yes I have them somewhere amongst the thousands of documents I have got possession of...

[Hartley]

Mike do you have West and Bonnetts statements?

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

Yes I have them somewhere amongst the thousands of documents I have got possession of...

If this theory is to be progressed then they seem somewhat relevant, that's all.

[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.

Not really. Yes they are discrepancies, but they do not indicate that Ralph called the police

The theory is based on the contents of the two logs. It's inaccurate and misleading to assert that the theory is based solely on the words 'father' and 'daughter' in the logs. The two-call theory is not proved by the logs, but is a simple explanation of all the discrepancies.

[Roch]

... 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

The theory is based on the contents of the two logs. It's inaccurate and misleading to assert that the theory is based solely on the words 'father' and 'daughter' in the logs. The two-call theory is not proved by the logs, but is a simple explanation of all the discrepancies.

That's an interesting way of putting it.  Not proven yet suggested.

[Alias]

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)...

"Daughter has got hold of one of MY guns." I can´t see how it could have been written like that if only Jeremy called the police.

[Roch]

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)...

"Daughter has got hold of one of MY guns." I can´t see how it could have been written like that if only Jeremy called the police.

If the message has been passed over from Jeremy, as opposed to a direct call from Nevill as alleged by the defence... then I dont think this relayed message has been written down verbatim by the recipient... 

Because Nevill would not describe Sheila as his 'daughter' to Jeremy.  (Nevill would only describe Sheila as his 'daughter' to a stranger)    

Does this make sense or can someone pick holes in it?