JB petition now has almost ten thousand signatures.

[lookout]

Just something would be ......... well, 'something' 

Something has cropped up. The truth about the phone calls. I've always believed that Nevill rang Jeremy.   

[Caroline]

Something has cropped up. The truth about the phone calls. I've always believed that Nevill rang Jeremy.

You mean the 'truth' according to the CT? 

He didn't call the police Lookout - there is absolutely zero evidence to support that claim and solid evidence to disprove it.

[Caroline]

Something has cropped up. The truth about the phone calls. I've always believed that Nevill rang Jeremy.

Are you referring to this from Bambertweets? 

Further fresh evidence

In addition, evidence provided in the witness statement of PC Saxby dated 23 September 1985 states[1]:

“About 03:30am on Wednesday the 7th August 1985 I was on duty at Witham Police Station in company Police Sergeant 36 Bews and Police Constable 1509 Myall, [sic] when I received a message over my personal radio, from Chelmsford Police Station”

PC Saxby is clear he received information via his police personal radio at about 03:30am. This can only have related to the telephone call that had been received at 03:26am made by Nevill Bamber. PC Myall gave evidence that PC Saxby spoke to PC West over the internal telephone at 03:37am. This can only have related to the telephone call that had been received at 03:36am made by Jeremy Bamber. This evidence reveals that PC West contacted Witham Police station on two occasions using a different means of doing so each time, because he received two different calls at different times.

[lookout]

Are you referring to this from Bambertweets? 

Further fresh evidence

In addition, evidence provided in the witness statement of PC Saxby dated 23 September 1985 states[1]:

“About 03:30am on Wednesday the 7th August 1985 I was on duty at Witham Police Station in company Police Sergeant 36 Bews and Police Constable 1509 Myall, [sic] when I received a message over my personal radio, from Chelmsford Police Station”

PC Saxby is clear he received information via his police personal radio at about 03:30am. This can only have related to the telephone call that had been received at 03:26am made by Nevill Bamber. PC Myall gave evidence that PC Saxby spoke to PC West over the internal telephone at 03:37am. This can only have related to the telephone call that had been received at 03:36am made by Jeremy Bamber. This evidence reveals that PC West contacted Witham Police station on two occasions using a different means of doing so each time, because he received two different calls at different times.

Yes,that's right.

[lookout]

You mean the 'truth' according to the CT? 

He didn't call the police Lookout - there is absolutely zero evidence to support that claim and solid evidence to disprove it.

How do you know there's " zero evidence ?"

[lookout]

If there's written proof of evidence, where's your proof that there wasn't ?

[Jane]

If there's written proof of evidence, where's your proof that there wasn't ?

Where, after all this time, has the alleged "written proof" been hidden? It seems to be no more than a continuation of the log debacle.

[lookout]

Where, after all this time, has the alleged "written proof" been hidden? It seems to be no more than a continuation of the log debacle.

That's as maybe, but when it's explained in full the question has to arise as to why the judge had persuaded the jury to take the first time that was mentioned and not query the misdirection. 10 mins ? 

[Jane]

That's as maybe, but when it's explained in full the question has to arise as to why the judge had persuaded the jury to take the first time that was mentioned and not query the misdirection. 10 mins ?

I can only suggest that it came from a place of it being as obvious to the judge as it is to some of us, and that being the case there's have been nothing else to answer. IF I can bring myself to believe that there HAD been a call from Nevill to the police, unless the person who took it admits that such a call had been received, it can't possibly be proved, and as it's not possible to prove a negative, it can't be proved that no such call was received. It seems to me that it's no less speculative now than it ever was. To give credence to what you suggest can only be seen as going down the technicality route.

[lookout]

I can only suggest that it came from a place of it being as obvious to the judge as it is to some of us, and that being the case there's have been nothing else to answer. IF I can bring myself to believe that there HAD been a call from Nevill to the police, unless the person who took it admits that such a call had been received, it can't possibly be proved, and as it's not possible to prove a negative, it can't be proved that no such call was received. It seems to me that it's no less speculative now than it ever was. To give credence to what you suggest can only be seen as going down the technicality route.

Certainly not a technicality, it was a deliberate mistake because all involved wanted a conviction.

[Jane]

Certainly not a technicality, it was a deliberate mistake because all involved wanted a conviction.

Well, to suggest that an act was "deliberate" is to suggest that there was some personal involvement between perpetrator and victim. How, on the back of a random phone call, can that be? A mistake could only be called "deliberate" if it could be proved that the true story was known in advance. So IF a phone call was received from Nevill and accidentally overlooked, there'd have been NO reason not to rectify it WELL before "all involved wanted a conviction" allegedly, and WELL before it was decided they had enough on Jeremy to prosecute him. SO much of what happened is being seen with the luxury of hindsight and at some point has been blurred to suit.

[lookout]

Well, to suggest that an act was "deliberate" is to suggest that there was some personal involvement between perpetrator and victim. How, on the back of a random phone call, can that be? A mistake could only be called "deliberate" if it could be proved that the true story was known in advance. So IF a phone call was received from Nevill and accidentally overlooked, there'd have been NO reason not to rectify it WELL before "all involved wanted a conviction" allegedly, and WELL before it was decided they had enough on Jeremy to prosecute him. SO much of what happened is being seen with the luxury of hindsight and at some point has been blurred to suit.

So far as I've always seen there are two recorded phone-calls, one from Nevill the other from Jeremy and I've always believed that they were separate calls from each individual so why couldn't anyone else also see that two separate calls were made to the police ? Why did those at Witham never own up to receiving two calls at different times ?
Nevill's call to the police was after he'd spoken to Jeremy which is why Jeremy couldn't get back to his father because the phone was engaged-------Nevill was phoning the police.

[Caroline]

So far as I've always seen there are two recorded phone-calls, one from Nevill the other from Jeremy and I've always believed that they were separate calls from each individual so why couldn't anyone else also see that two separate calls were made to the police ? Why did those at Witham never own up to receiving two calls at different times ?
Nevill's call to the police was after he'd spoken to Jeremy which is why Jeremy couldn't get back to his father because the phone was engaged-------Nevill was phoning the police.

No, there are two logs, one written by West and one by Bonnet. Bonnet's log was formatted by a call from West to relay information of the victim - victim being Nevill Bambe - information which originated from Jeremy Bamber.

[lookout]

No, there are two logs, one written by West and one by Bonnet. Bonnet's log was formatted by a call from West to relay information of the victim - victim being Nevill Bambe - information which originated from Jeremy Bamber.

Could you argue this against the legal team ?

[lookout]

Could you argue this against the legal team ?

If, for instance they have a witness who was at the scene ?