Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on November 02, 2019, 05:12:PM
-
I was going over Ewen Smith's spreadsheets again, when this caught my attention.
(https://i.ibb.co/w7cJTkD/action818.png)
I wonder what that is all about? Perhaps Mike has a copy of action report 818?
-
I was going over Ewen Smith's spreadsheets again, when this caught my attention.
(https://i.ibb.co/w7cJTkD/action818.png)
I wonder what that is all about? Perhaps Mike has a copy of action report 818?
I know what it's about - give me a sec.
-
I know what it's about - give me a sec.
It's from a statement by Barbara Wilson. She made up the wages for the staff. The wages for Len Foakes included a rise and some back pay. Jeremy said he would give Len and Alf Foakes their wages. Len found his pay to be £100.00 short. Bab's blamed Jeremy. This is from her W/S taken on 27th September 1985 - we don't have that statement on the forum but Mike might have it?
-
It's from a statement by Barbara Wilson. She made up the wages for the staff. The wages for Len Foakes included a rise and some back pay. Jeremy said he would give Len and Alf Foakes their wages. Len found his pay to be £100.00 short. Bab's blamed Jeremy. This is from her W/S taken on 27th September 1985 - we don't have that statement on the forum but Mike might have it?
please tell me the relevance of all this?
-
please tell me the relevance of all this?
David asked a question, I provided the answer. That's generally how it works.
-
David asked a question, I provided the answer. That's generally how it works.
call me ignorant I'm just struggling to see the relevance of a workers wage to the matter in hand...
-
call me ignorant I'm just struggling to see the relevance of a workers wage to the matter in hand...
Did you read all of the posts here?
David asked about the reference on a spreadsheet to an alleged theft of staff wages. The reference is attributed to Ann Eaton, but it was Barbara Wilson he mentioned that she suspected Jeremy of taking the money.
There are many discussions here and they tend to revolve around a question/answer format.
-
Did you read all of the posts here?
David asked about the reference on a spreadsheet to an alleged theft of staff wages. The reference is attributed to Ann Eaton, but it was Barbara Wilson he mentioned that she suspected Jeremy of taking the money.
There are many discussions here and they tend to revolve around a question/answer format.
I will retieriate for clarification, and also apologise on my behalf. But I'm only interested in what's factual
-
I will retieriate for clarification, and also apologise on my behalf. But I'm only interested in what's factual and more importantly relevant to the more important matter in hand ...
-
call me ignorant I'm just struggling to see the relevance of a workers wage to the matter in hand...
Its not the workers wage that's important. Its simply the allegation that is being made and its connection to a witness who is known to make false claims in order to incriminate Jeremy Bamber.
-
Its not the workers wage that's important. Its simply the allegation that is being made and its connection to a witness who is known to make false claims in order to incriminate Jeremy Bamber.
I'm aware of that David. But it's an allegation that is totally irrelevant and holds no bounds or merit. It is just character blackening. Like what is done by a red top newspaper. Even if Jeremy Bamber conned a farm worker it doesn't make him guilty or murder and I'm not suggesting he did con a farm worker it's irrelevant. It's pub gossip
-
I'm aware of that David. But it's an allegation that is totally irrelevant and holds no bounds or merit. It is just character blackening. Like what is done by a red top newspaper. Even if Jeremy Bamber conned a farm worker it doesn't make him guilty or murder and I'm not suggesting he did con a farm worker it's irrelevant. It's pub gossip
Most people here are attempting to extricate the truth from the character blackenings/rumours/pub gossip. There usually is some. Take, for instance, the 'fact' that Nevill allegedly held frequent late night phone conversations with Sheila when she was not herself. The "fact" is that it's mentioned twice. Twice has become 'frequent', as in "on a regular basis". Of course, I'd probably need more fingers than my hands provide me with to list that which has crossed the line which divides factual from the nonfactual, thus becoming lies.
-
Lies on both sides, that is.
-
I'm aware of that David. But it's an allegation that is totally irrelevant and holds no bounds or merit. It is just character blackening. Like what is done by a red top newspaper. Even if Jeremy Bamber conned a farm worker it doesn't make him guilty or murder and I'm not suggesting he did con a farm worker it's irrelevant. It's pub gossip
It's a bit more than pub gossip if the allegation emanates from Ann Eaton.
-
It's a bit more than pub gossip if the allegation emanates from Ann Eaton.
It emanated from Barbara Wilson, the lady who made up the pay packets and passed them to Jeremy, when one was opened, it was £100.00 short. That isn't gossip although it certainly doesn't mean Jeremy is a murderer - but no one suggested it did.
-
I will retieriate for clarification, and also apologise on my behalf. But I'm only interested in what's factual
Then you won't be interested in the suggestion that there was a call from Nevill!
-
Then you won't be interested in the suggestion that there was a call from Nevill!
can you prove there never was ?
-
can you prove there never was ?
The evidence proves there wasn't.
-
West said he received a call from Jeremy Bamber - no one else.
Bonnet said he received a call from West and was passing on information received by 'the son of Mr Bamber (Jeremy).
West makes no mention of a call from Nevill Bamber in his statement only two days later - this is BEFORE Bamber is a suspect. Had he received such a call, it would have been mentioned here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6845.msg317551.html#msg317551
West admitted that he could have made a mistake in respect to the time on his log. This is consistent with BOTH the time given initially by Bamber himself (03:24) and the time written on Bonnets log (03:26).
It isn't true that the log supposedly detailing NB's call was withheld, this log was shown to the jury and court stamped as an exhibit. Wests log, was referred to in court and used by West when he gave his testimony - neither log was withheld!
Had Jeremy called the police at 03:36, it would mean that he did nothing to aid his father for 26 minutes and calling Julie prior to the police - something he denies and he wouldn't have had time (given how long the call to West took) to get to WHF in the time documented.
The logs refer to one call and one call only - the call from Jeremy!
-
. . . he wouldn't have had time (given how long the call to West took) to get to WHF in the time documented.
What time documented? The duration of his call to Pc West wasn't documented, but it presumably ended before Pc West logged 03:42 as the time when he did something else. Jeremy could have left his cottage just before 3:42, leaving him just enough time to get to WHF without driving unusually fast.
-
What time documented? The duration of his call to Pc West wasn't documented, but it presumably ended before Pc West logged 03:42 as the time when he did something else. Jeremy could have left his cottage just before 3:42, leaving him just enough time to get to WHF without driving unusually fast.
AE stated that Jeremy claimed he was on the phone for 11 minutes. Which log has West written 03:42? However, if Jeremy didn't call until 03:36, how on earth did Bonnet talk to him at 03:26? A call from Nevill? and yet both West and Bonnet says not!! Madness!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I would have thought that the police would have been more precise as afterall it was their job to take down the time and not argue the toss with someone who was in a state of panic. It was poor workmanship on EP's part in every sense of the word.
-
I would have thought that the police would have been more precise as afterall it was their job to take down the time and not argue the toss with someone who was in a state of panic. It was poor workmanship on EP's part in every sense of the word.
He wasn't in a state of panic, had he been, he'd have called 999. So West wrote down the wrong time, he didn't know that years later, he would be used TWICE in order to get a mass killer off on a technicality - however, the CCRC have been hear too often to fall for this tactic!
-
He wasn't in a state of panic, had he been, he'd have called 999. So West wrote down the wrong time, he didn't know that years later, he would be used TWICE in order to get a mass killer off on a technicality - however, the CCRC have been hear too often to fall for this tactic!
Bewilderment would have been the better word, not knowing what to expect. Even if he had rang 999 folk would have been saying " it was for effect " so whatever he did or said he was damned either way.
-
Bewilderment would have been the better word, not knowing what to expect. Even if he had rang 999 folk would have been saying " it was for effect " so whatever he did or said he was damned either way.
Actually, no one would have questioned it, Lookout. It would have been the appropriate thing to do EVEN had it turned out to be the wrong thing to do.
-
Bewilderment would have been the better word, not knowing what to expect. Even if he had rang 999 folk would have been saying " it was for effect " so whatever he did or said he was damned either way.
For effect? ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
For effect? ::) ::) ::) ::)
And there was I thinking one called 999 for police, ambulance, or fire service. They are only the three options offered. Since when did ANYONE call 999 for effect?
-
AE stated that Jeremy claimed he was on the phone for 11 minutes. Which log has West written 03:42? However, if Jeremy didn't call until 03:36, how on earth did Bonnet talk to him at 03:26? A call from Nevill? and yet both West and Bonnet says not!! Madness!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
You mean that Bonnet spoke to West at 3.26.
-
You mean that Bonnet spoke to West at 3.26.
Yes.
-
For effect? ::) ::) ::) ::)
Yes, to have suited those who didn't and don't believe him. None too sharp are you ?
-
Yes, to have suited those who didn't and don't believe him. None too sharp are you ?
OH, NOW I see. He deliberately waited before alerting the police in case he was suspected he was calling them for effect. It didn't matter about them all getting shot just as long as no one thought he called the police for "effect" ::) ::) ::)
-
Yes, to have suited those who didn't and don't believe him. None too sharp are you ?
He'd have only thought like that if he was planning a murder ;D ;D ;D. No Lookout, not as 'sharp' as you - no one is ::)
-
AE stated that Jeremy claimed he was on the phone for 11 minutes.
What exactly did AE claim? What was shown previously didn't include this claim.
Which log has West written 03:42?
Pc West wrote (see his log on this forum) "Fathers phone Mal. 860209 checked by GPO @ 0342 & left off hook" and his statement of 13 September 1985 clarifies that after Jeremy's call ended, Pc West informed Acting Inspector Targrass of the situation (but doesn't say how he did that) and immediately afterwards dialled Maldon 860209 [the WHF number at the time]. The line was engaged, so he asked the GPO operator to check the line. He timed her reply at 3:42, and she said the telephone had been left off the hook. Thus 03:42 should have been shortly after Jeremy's call ended, not 6 minutes after it ended.
As the time on Pc West's log came to be disputed, the police could have asked Targrass when Pc West spoke to him, but it seems they didn't do that.
. . . calling Julie prior to the police - something he denies . . .
Presumably, he doesn't now deny calling Julie prior to calling the police.
-
What exactly did AE claim? What was shown previously didn't include this claim.
Pc West wrote (see his log on this forum) "Fathers phone Mal. 860209 checked by GPO @ 0342 & left off hook" and his statement of 13 September 1985 clarifies that after Jeremy's call ended, Pc West informed Acting Inspector Targrass of the situation (but doesn't say how he did that) and immediately afterwards dialled Maldon 860209 [the WHF number at the time]. The line was engaged, so he asked the GPO operator to check the line. He timed her reply at 3:42, and she said the telephone had been left off the hook. Thus 03:42 should have been shortly after Jeremy's call ended, not 6 minutes after it ended.
As the time on Pc West's log came to be disputed, the police could have asked Targrass when Pc West spoke to him, but it seems they didn't do that.
Presumably, he doesn't now deny calling Julie prior to calling the police.
He does still state that he called the police first - I asked him.
From West's first statement (9th August), it is now clear that he completed the C1 form AFTER talking to Jeremy. This is why the timing is off.
-
What exactly did AE claim? What was shown previously didn't include this claim.
"he had timed police action to his call as 11 minutes'
What do you imagine that means Reader? Because if you're trying to insinuate that it means the time West left Jeremy on hold, it would mean he was on the phone even longer! It obviously just means he times the call at 11 minutes.
-
"he had timed police action to his call as 11 minutes'
What do you imagine that means Reader?
I'm unsure what it would mean, but it certainly isn't making a clear statement of his call's duration.
-
It probably felt that long. Even 5 minutes seems an age when you're waiting. Time is only ever approximate if you don't have a watch or a clock nearby or one that doesn't tell the correct time.
-
I'm unsure what it would mean, but it certainly isn't making a clear statement of his call's duration.
Perhaps not to you but you can think of what else it would mean, To me it's obvious.
-
It probably felt that long. Even 5 minutes seems an age when you're waiting. Time is only ever approximate if you don't have a watch or a clock nearby or one that doesn't tell the correct time.
Well, clearly he MUST have had a watch on - you don't frag a figure like 11 minutes out of the ether.
-
Well, clearly he MUST have had a watch on - you don't frag a figure like 11 minutes out of the ether.
Must ? Not definitely,then ?
-
Must ? Not definitely,then ?
Unlike your out of the air notion that the canvas shoes were A. blood covered and B. Not on the list of exhibits. I'd say he wearing a watch was pretty definite!
-
Must ? Not definitely,then ?
Without one, how would he have known how long he'd been on the phone................unless he was psychic, too?
-
Without one, how would he have known how long he'd been on the phone................unless he was psychic, too?
It's not him, it's you expecting everyone to know how long he was on the phone. Even gauging the time/distance from Goldhanger to WHF while travelling at X amount of MPH. The answer's a lemon !
How long is a piece of string ?
-
It's not him, it's you expecting everyone to know how long he was on the phone. Even gauging the time/distance from Goldhanger to WHF while travelling at X amount of MPH. The answer's a lemon !
How long is a piece of string ?
Lookout, even with discalculia, I KNOW that the answer can't be "lemons" coz they don't come into the equation. I believe it goes something like MPH+D over T. Given my difficulty, I doubt it was I who started the conversation.
-
Must ? Not definitely,then ?
Its important to note that Jeremy was only timing this call according to Ann Eaton.
This thread here is an interesting read.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842)
She managed to hear Jeremy say all kinds of things nobody else did. Even things the police officers never heard him say when taking his statements.
-
Lookout, even with discalculia, I KNOW that the answer can't be "lemons" coz they don't come into the equation. I believe it goes something like MPH+D over T. Given my difficulty, I doubt it was I who started the conversation.
Difficulty ?
-
Its important to note that Jeremy was only timing this call according to Ann Eaton.
This thread here is an interesting read.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842)
She managed to hear Jeremy say all kinds of things nobody else did. Even things the police officers never heard him say when taking his statements.
She was there longer, the others were in and out and not everyone is going to report hearing the same information.
-
I believe it goes something like MPH+D over T.
Although MPH = D over T is valid, it's easier to use an online calculator.