Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest29835 on July 12, 2020, 04:55:PM
-
You can tell a lot about somebody from the way they sound.
What did Nevill's voice sound like? Does anybody here know?
Was it anything like Jeremy's? Jeremy voice, from audio recordings, sounds to me like a generic Anglian accent with 'educated' modulations and a slight but definite Essex lilt. Nevill had sought to give Jeremy a good education of at least equivalent to what he received, and this lingers in Jeremy's voice, which has an educated aspect to it. I also pick up a 'wishy-washy', plaintive aspect to Jeremy through his voice, which I think comes out of spending most of his adult life in high security prisons under submission to the authorities.
I imagine that Nevill sounded quite different to Jeremy. They were genetically unrelated for one thing.
There was an obvious age gap, from which we can imply a lot. Maybe Nevill had a Home Counties accent, though it may have been genericised by his War service and other cosmopolitan experiences, and it must also have reflected an advantaged background that saw him attend public school. Did Nevill ever live in or visit India? Maybe Nevill picked up an Essex country twang along the way. He seems to have impressed the Speakmans immensely and rubbed along reasonably enough with the younger Robert Boutflour, which suggests that despite his advantaged upbringing, he was able to fit in and not overbear people.
How does this quality compare and contrast with Jeremy? It is difficult to imagine Jeremy enjoying the same success as a respected hard-working Grey Man whose jib fitted. Jeremy was an individualist, somebody who stood out. Nevill seduced June as her tennis partner. Jeremy met Julie as a barman at Sloppy Joe's. Nevill was a worker. Jeremy was a performer. Nevill slotted into the farming-business matrix of the Speakmans and Boutflours. Jeremy was still young and unformed, but seemed more self-interested and short-termist in his horizons and attitudes: the Epicurean to Nevill's Zeno.
Nevill devoted himself to the life of a working farmer and to his local community as a parochial church warden and respected magistrate and youth justice chairman. Yet he was not of a parochial sensibility. Like Jeremy, he was able to follow his adventurous instincts when young. In Nevill's case, this was through War service. Then he settled down. In business, he was an important northern Essex farmer, owning a large and successful farm business formed as a limited company, yet he did not put on airs and graces. He directly-supervised all aspects of the farm operations and, isolated incidents aside, was generally respected in the farming community. He was also a company director and shareholder in a successful food production co-operative. He would have been self-confident and comfortable around people at all levels and one can imagine that perhaps his voice was strong, authoritative and assertive.
Jeremy picked up this self-confidence and authoritative air from his adoptive father but it may have been precociously misdirected into youthful arrogance and insecure defensive petulance. "That is for you to prove" is what Jeremy told the prosecution counsel, Anthony Arlidge, at the 1986 trial. Barbara Wilson seemed unimpressed with him, perhaps because Jeremy's self-assuredness was out-of-place at that stage as he had not proven himself as a capable farm operator in his own right.
One reason we like to assume this terrible act on the 6th. and 7th. August 1985 was planned is that it makes it easier to discuss and rationalise. A spontaneous murder - a 'crime of passion', as the Continentals would call it - is harder to understand, often impenetrable to ordinary human comprehension. It is easier to apply post hoc ergo propter hoc observations to evidence and template on to Jeremy's mind a fully-formed criminal intent. June's bike must be part of the plan, whereas it may just have been as Jeremy says: Julie borrowed the bike. Jeremy specifically enquired after Colin about whether Sheila and the twins would be there that week, whereas Colin invited Jeremy to that social gathering and Jeremy may have just been making conversation. Jeremy showed Sheila how to load the rifle, but Sheila had expressed an interest in guns before and may have just been curious. Jeremy left the gun out, but guns were left out all over the house. The bedroom phone was missing, but the kitchen phone was being repaired.
I suspect Jeremy's actions were unplanned and the outcrop of a psychosis catalysed by family tensions, and he instantiated the fake phone call after a genuine call from Nevill that evening. But let us say I am wrong and it was all planned. We must then ask: How did Jeremy arrive at the conclusion that Nevill would call him rather than the emergency services? Surely such a plan would entail considerable risk, due to the inevitable suspicion it throws on Jeremy? Surely better for Jeremy not to fake (or make) a call at all, to anybody. So why did Jeremy go down this avenue? As part of his criminal planning, Jeremy must have given some careful thought to Nevill, and among other things, Nevill's voice. Jeremy must assume that Nevill would go for the phones, and Jeremy would know that the police would assume this too and would ask why Nevill had not reached the phones and why Nevill's voice had not been heard on the phone by a police officer or a civilian operator like Malcolm Bonnett. This is especially important if Sheila is to be deemed the suspected killer because she would probably focus on June rather than Nevill. Who does Nevill call? The emergency services, 999. Unless there is a reason for Nevill to call somebody else, like Jeremy. For what reason would that arise? Nevill might want to keep the incident from the authorities and prefer to manage things within the close family. However, in reality, Nevill must try to ring 999 because he must know that the perpetrator is Jeremy. Even if Jeremy wears a mask, surely Nevill would still recognise him?
This is where we come to another problem for the Crown. How can they explain the lack of a 999 call from White House Farm, even if it was an abortive call? The fact that Nevill was shot in the face does not prevent him dialling 999. For one thing, he may not have been cognisant of his injuries at that point and surely would have tried to dial 999 anyway. Why didn't he? Why did he run for the kitchen? Or did Jeremy take him there at gun point? If that is what happened, why didn't Nevill fight more for June, Sheila and the twins, and why would Jeremy take him downstairs at gunpoint leaving June still alive and conscious, albeit seriously injured? And why at this crime scene do we find the kitchen phone free of blood marks?
And what about phone records? Jeremy would know that phone bills then were not itemised, as he must have received bills at Goldhanger. (Or did he?) Would Jeremy know whether calls were itemised at the exchange end? Would Jeremy have understood that 999 emergency calls were recorded, as were ordinary calls to the police? This was back in the 1980s. Was that common knowledge then? For instance, were there popular TV series with 999 recordings that would have made him aware of this?
A still more pertinent question: If Jeremy did not know any of these things but had thought of them as part of his criminal planning, then how does he go about finding out the position without leaving an evidence trail? This was before the internet and worldwide web. He can't just carry out a Tor search. He would have to make enquiries of BT, the police, maybe a public library, and so on, or ask people he thinks are 'in the know'. How does he do this without the risk that the people he contacts become witnesses for the prosecution later down the line?
Thinking all this through, maybe for the sake of completeness we should explore the notion of an actual 999 call from Nevill. The scenario would be that Jeremy comes to the conclusion that he could fake Nevill's voice, or have a Fake Nevill make a abortive 999 call with some vague noise to the operator to indicate he is in trouble. But could Jeremy credibly throw Nevill's voice?
If that is too far-fetched, then consider what the Crown allege Jeremy did as it is: he entered a property and wiped out his own family, including two small boys, then left, and did all this without leaving any direct forensic evidence of the act. He did it for money, they say. In a way, that's far-fetched too. Really, whether something is far-fetched or not often depends on one's point-of-view and how one interprets the evidence available.
There is evidence for a 999 call from Nevill. The question is whether it is good evidence or we should just fall back on the default explanation that the civilian operator, Malcolm Bonnett, took one call, from PC West, who in turn spoke to Jeremy. I have to say, the default explanation seems the more reasonable, but we are reliant on the evidence in front of us and the two phone logs could be interpreted in Jeremy's favour.
-
https://youtu.be/35FF7e1-zCg
-
https://youtu.be/35FF7e1-zCg
It's gone over your head.
I don't believe there was a 999 call from Nevill, and I don't consider it a central issue anyway, but it is a matter of weighing the evidence. It's not enough just to dismiss it as 'far-fetched'. What's 'far-fetched' is often subjective and down to a point-of-view.
Furthermore, there is a hole in the Crown's case here because if Nevill didn't make a 999 call, we have to explain why. In doing so, we have to accept and acknowledge that 'making a 999 call' does not necessarily entail speaking into the phone. If Nevill is so critically-injured that he can't physically speak, it doesn't follow that he can't dial 999 and make the call, it only means that he can't speak to the operator. Emergency calls in which there is no conversation with the operator are not uncommon.
-
There is evidence for a 999 call from Nevill.
No there isn't
Malcolm Bonnett, took one call, from PC West, who in turn spoke to Jeremy.
This is what happened.
-
No there isn't
Actually, there is. But I only say there is evidence. I don't necessarily say it's good evidence.
-
Actually, there is. But I only say there is evidence. I don't necessarily say it's good evidence.
There is no log showing a call from WHF
-
There is no log showing a call from WHF
Not as such, and to be clear, I entirely comprehend the counter-argument: Chinese whispers, natural re-interpretation of what Bamber says to West, etc. I'm not putting on a tin foil hat here.
But....there is a log record that could be inferred to be a call from White House Farm. That is fact. Deny it until you're blue in the face, but the log exists. It's then a matter of interpretation and who offers the best evidence. You could take the view (and I probably would take this view) that Bonnett's evidence at trial should supersede the log.
But wait....Did the defence have the opportunity to cross-examine Bonnett about this at trial? He gave evidence at trial, but was the counterpart log disclosed? If the evidence was not adduced, then how can we say it has been tested?
There is also a log record that has at least one raid group officer apparently reporting one male and one female in the kitchen. Again, probably a simple mistake. Common sense would suggest so, due to the difficulty of Sheila moving around the house after one shoot and the lack of a forensic footprint for this. But do we know it was a mistake? How do we know that Sheila had shot herself at this point? We have no times of death confirmed. Again, I'm not saying this is my view, but why should it be seen as far-fetched? It could be that there was a female downstairs in addition to Nevill. (Or, much less likely, it could even be that there was a male in addition to Nevill). Probably not, but we don't know.
I'm not suggesting that I would include this sort of thing in any appeal, but the point is that it's not about what anybody believes. It's about evidence.
One side has a piece of evidence. The other side says, 'No, you've got the wrong end of the stick there. It was all a mistake.' The judges should weigh it up, shouldn't they?
The logs are evidence and need to be considered in the context of the failure to previously disclose this material and, if I understand correctly, a reluctance to disclose and a failure to correct the record. In a fair trial, the defence must have the right to test the evidence. It's then up to the appeal judges to decide if they think the defence has produced good evidence that shakes the convictions.
Specifically going back to the phone calls, the better point for the defence in my view is to highlight the difficulty for the Crown in explaining Nevill's movements from a time-and-motion point-of-view in light of the ballistic evidence and also why he didn't dial 999. Surely, if Jeremy did this and he is lying about the call from Nevill, then Nevill must have at least tried to dial 999, even if he was injured in the jaw/face? Why is there no evidence for that?
-
But....there is a log record that could be inferred to be a call from White House Farm. That is fact. Deny it until you're blue in the face, but the log exists.
How can a log that states the caller is CD1990 (PC West) and the receiver of this call said the caller on the other end was PC West from Chelmsford police station, possibly be inferred to be a call from Nevill at White house farm?
Its those who have insisted the contrary who have been blue in face.
-
How can a log that states the caller is CD1990 (PC West) and the receiver of this call said the caller on the other end was PC West from Chelmsford police station, possibly be inferred to be a call from Nevill at White house farm?
Its those who have insisted the contrary who have been blue in face.
There's more to it than that. I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about it.
To me, it doesn’t matter whether it happened this way or not. That’s not the point.
The duty of the defence is to test the Crown’s case, not go round second-guessing the police.
Was the counterpart log disclosed or not? If it wasn’t, then it’s fresh (untested) evidence and ripe for appeal. That’s not to say it should be an appeal point, only that it could be.
An appeal judge (indeed, a juror too at a re-trial) could quite legitimately take the view that even if Nevill never made the call, a 999 call would still have to be made for the prosecution case to be consistent and therefore the convictions might be unsafe. There is also the issue of whether prejudice has been caused to the defence through non-disclosure.
Let me tell you that if I was a juror at re-trial, I would conclude that the log is wrong on its face but that the failure of the police to disclose it was prejudicial and the lack of evidence of a 999 call by Nevill undermines the prosecution case.
-
There's more to it than that. I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about it.
To me, it doesn’t matter whether it happened this way or not. That’s not the point.
The duty of the defence is to test the Crown’s case, not go round second-guessing the police.
Was the counterpart log disclosed or not? If it wasn’t, then it’s fresh (untested) evidence and ripe for appeal. That’s not to say it should be an appeal point, only that it could be.
An appeal judge (indeed, a juror too at a re-trial) could quite legitimately take the view that even if Nevill never made the call, a 999 call would still have to be made for the prosecution case to be consistent and therefore the convictions might be unsafe. There is also the issue of whether prejudice has been caused to the defence through non-disclosure.
Let me tell you that if I was a juror at re-trial, I would conclude that the log is wrong on its face but that the failure of the police to disclose it was prejudicial and the lack of evidence of a 999 call by Nevill undermines the prosecution case.
You and David are almost opposites. He is a poster who believes Jeremy is innocent - but his reasoning and posts often seem more supportive to the crown than the defence. You are a poster who suspects Jeremy may be culpable - but your reasoning and posts seem more supportive to the defence than the crown.
-
There's more to it than that. I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about it.
To me, it doesn’t matter whether it happened this way or not. That’s not the point.
The duty of the defence is to test the Crown’s case, not go round second-guessing the police.
Was the counterpart log disclosed or not? If it wasn’t, then it’s fresh (untested) evidence and ripe for appeal. That’s not to say it should be an appeal point, only that it could be.
An appeal judge (indeed, a juror too at a re-trial) could quite legitimately take the view that even if Nevill never made the call, a 999 call would still have to be made for the prosecution case to be consistent and therefore the convictions might be unsafe. There is also the issue of whether prejudice has been caused to the defence through non-disclosure.
Let me tell you that if I was a juror at re-trial, I would conclude that the log is wrong on its face but that the failure of the police to disclose it was prejudicial and the lack of evidence of a 999 call by Nevill undermines the prosecution case.
Your posts do have a certain literary merit, notwithstanding your disdain in a previous post for paperback gossip. However you hold no fixed view about anything, and though you intrigue me you're essentially a reed in the wind, a weathercock not a barometer.
To deal quickly with two points here: a 999 call was not made from White House Farm. Jeremy probably telephoned his answerphone at Bourtree Cottage from the Farm post-murders, hoping that this would substantiate his claim of a call from Nevill for assistance. The last number redial facility was nullified when a Police Officer that morning used the blue telephone in the office for some official business. But how you concoct a fantasy that a 999 call is a prerequisite for a conviction beats me.
On the second point the logs were disclosed to the Defence, but it either did not use them or did not find them to use.
-
There's more to it than that. I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about it.
To me, it doesn’t matter whether it happened this way or not. That’s not the point.
The duty of the defence is to test the Crown’s case, not go round second-guessing the police.
Was the counterpart log disclosed or not? If it wasn’t, then it’s fresh (untested) evidence and ripe for appeal. That’s not to say it should be an appeal point, only that it could be.
An appeal judge (indeed, a juror too at a re-trial) could quite legitimately take the view that even if Nevill never made the call, a 999 call would still have to be made for the prosecution case to be consistent and therefore the convictions might be unsafe. There is also the issue of whether prejudice has been caused to the defence through non-disclosure.
Let me tell you that if I was a juror at re-trial, I would conclude that the log is wrong on its face but that the failure of the police to disclose it was prejudicial and the lack of evidence of a 999 call by Nevill undermines the prosecution case.
All logs were disclosed and brought up at trial. All those involved in the emergency calls testified at the trial (Jeremy, West and Bonnet)
What has been suggested is that PC West took calls from both Nevill and Jeremy. Ainsley then re-typed Wests statements to hide Nevils call and West never mentioned anything about it at Jeremy's trial. These are just stupid ideas to make a stupid theory work.
A cohesive definitive evidence based timeline of the calls can be found here.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10008.msg456650.html#msg456650 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10008.msg456650.html#msg456650)
The proponents of the Nevill 999 theory have no such timeline because it simply never happened and there is no evidence for it.
-
West (probably under duress from DS Jones / DCS Ainsley) forged different versions of his call log, without altering the time of the call.
-
West (probably under duress from DS Jones / DCS Ainsley) forged different versions of his call log, without altering the time of the call.
That's theoretically possible, but wouldn't the urge be to please the boss first, namely DCI Taff Jones?
-
All logs were disclosed and brought up at trial. All those involved in the emergency calls testified at the trial (Jeremy, West and Bonnet)
What has been suggested is that PC West took calls from both Nevill and Jeremy. Ainsley then re-typed Wests statements to hide Nevils call and West never mentioned anything about it at Jeremy's trial. These are just stupid ideas to make a stupid theory work.
A cohesive definitive evidence based timeline of the calls can be found here.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10008.msg456650.html#msg456650 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10008.msg456650.html#msg456650)
The proponents of the Nevill 999 theory have no such timeline because it simply never happened and there is no evidence for it.
Thanks David. I'm not sure I would agree with you that there is no evidence for it, but you say there was disclosure. Obviously, you'll appreciate there's lots of evidence, so I may have got things backwards-upwards on the disclosure issue.
Let me put it this way. The point is that, in my view (I'm not a lawyer, so it's only an opinion), non-disclosure can be prejudicial to the defendant in and of itself. This is because non-disclosure prevents the defence testing the evidence and also prevents the defence raising questions that arise from the evidence, such as whether the Crown's extrapolations are consistent with the Crown's own case. This is because all bits of evidence have to fit the narrative or be consistent with the 'story' or case theory.
In this instance, the Crown extract from the logs that Nevill never made a 999 call. Yet, if I understand things correctly (you seem to be saying differently, it doesn't matter either way really for the moment) the Crown didn't disclose the full log at trial. This means the defence were prevented from considering whether this bit of the Crown's theory made sense in view of the adduced facts.
And in that same vein, we still have the problem that Nevill doesn't call 999.
-
You and David are almost opposites. He is a poster who believes Jeremy is innocent - but his reasoning and posts often seem more supportive to the crown than the defence. You are a poster who suspects Jeremy may be culpable - but your reasoning and posts seem more supportive to the defence than the crown.
Jeremy denies everything, which is his privilege, and we can't see inside his head or reach into a metaphorical ether and pull out the truth. Thus, the Crown's case must be tested. If it fails under the stress-test, then the convictions must fall and, I assume now, the probable perpetrator walks free rather than facing a re-trial.
Unless somebody has a better proposal for how the system should work, that's how it works. I have one or two suggestions for improvements to how the system deals with cases like this one, but I'm not one of the cognoscenti.
Of course, if Jeremy had the bottle to admit what he's done, then it would all be different. The issue then would be the fairness of the whole life order.
-
West (probably under duress from DS Jones / DCS Ainsley) forged different versions of his call log, without altering the time of the call.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
-
I have outlined the time-and-motion flaw with Sheila in the Crown's case on a different thread. If the Crown cannot establish that Sheila was under sedation, then I think the flaw could be fatal for the prosecution.
The issue with Nevill is of a similar kind, and while not as serious for the prosecution, it raises questions.
The relevant points are:
(i). The Crown deny that there was any 999 call from Nevill.
(ii). The main stairway is steep and narrow.
(iii). Two spots of blood were found between the main landing and the kitchen, respectively on the wall of the mainstairway and on the jamb between the foyer and the kitchen.
(iv). There was no blood on the kitchen door.
(v). There was no blood on the kitchen phone.
(vi). There was a struggle in the kitchen between Nevill and the killer.
(vii). Nevill was shot upstairs, roughly four times according to the Crown, and then four more times in the kitchen.
(viii). Nevill moved himself from upstairs to the kitchen - according to the Crown.
I find it difficult to reconcile all this with Jeremy being the killer, simply because in those circumstances:
(a). Jeremy would have already fired at June upstairs and left her seriously injured.
(b). Nevill must have been running for the kitchen phone. Why else would he run for the kitchen rather than stay upstairs and try to save Sheila and June?
(c). Nevill was already gravely injured, according to the Crown, yet he is able to move from one part of the house to another with the killer in pursuit.
Was there something else, other than the phone, in the kitchen itself or something in a different part of the house that required him to go via the kitchen?
If Nevill is running for the kitchen phone, then this does not have to be a completely rational decision. Nevill, we assume, is injured in the face/jaw, but it doesn't follow that he would not try to dial 999.
If there is no blood on the kitchen door, this suggests that the kitchen door was already open and Nevill does not try to block his attacker by shutting the door behind him.
If there is no blood on the kitchen phone, then this means Nevill never reached the phone.
Yet Nevill has left behind his wife and daughter, and is injured, because he wants to reach the phone.
There are blood prints on the worktop near the phone.
It seems to me there are two main possibilities:
1. Jeremy was the killer and caught up with Nevill just as he reached the worktop. They then struggle (or whatever happened next).
2. Sheila was the killer and the kitchen struggle occurred at the beginning of the incident. Nevill is already injured and goes for the phone again but Sheila stops him.
I have to say that 2 does seem to me more credible. If Sheila was the attacker, Nevill would have been quite hesitant about what he was doing, especially if it was early in the incident and he had already spoken to Jeremy.
The problem with 1 is that, if you look at the position of the prints and also consider the narrowness and steepness of the hallway stairs, Nevill had the advantage and would surely have reached the phone in any event. If Jeremy had already opened the line, all Nevill had to do was replace the receiver, take it off again, and dial three digits - which takes seconds. Thus, not to touch the phone must have been a choice - it's much more likely he makes that choice for Sheila rather than Jeremy.
There are two ways the Crown could overcome this:
Solution 1: Nevill reached the phone but the abortive/broken 999 call was not recorded at that time; furthermore, even if the line had remained open at the caller's end, it would have been terminated by the operator after a short period of time, and no further investigation would have occurred. Jeremy took it on himself to wipe the phone clean of blood, thinking that blood on the phone would be inconsistent with the staged call from Nevill.
Solution 2: Nevill reached the phone but Jeremy stopped him just as he was re-dialling. A police officer used the kitchen phone on the morning of the 7th., wiping it clean of blood, and this has never been recorded or admitted, perhaps because only one officer was aware of it having happened and he didn't realise the significance of what he was doing at the time.
Solution 1 can only be confirmed by somebody with knowledge of how emergency calls worked at that time, but in any event, this gives me another thought about a possible kernel for Jeremy's idea of staging a call from Nevill.
One theory I have is that he got the idea due to a genuine call from Nevill that I hypothesise was made the previous evening and that may have catalysed his rage, but there is an alternative possibility.
It's possible that Jeremy got the idea for staging a call after terminating Nevill's abortive 999 call. This may have occurred to him due to the fear (whether justified or not) that the police could and would trace back Nevill's unsuccessful call and so he decided there and then that he would have to stage a call from Nevill to himself, thinking (rightly or wrongly) that this would somehow cover him. He then realises also that a call to Julie may help him, so he rings her at about the same time that he rings the police.
-
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Well, if it wasn't the lead detectives from the second investigation, it would have to be the lead detectives of the first investigation. Unless, you are asserting West acted independently? That seems absurd.
-
I have outlined the time-and-motion flaw with Sheila in the Crown's case on a different thread. If the Crown cannot establish that Sheila was under sedation, then I think the flaw could be fatal for the prosecution.
The issue with Nevill is of a similar kind, and while not as serious for the prosecution, it raises questions.
The relevant points are:
(i). The Crown deny that there was any 999 call from Nevill.
(ii). The main stairway is steep and narrow.
(iii). Two spots of blood were found between the main landing and the kitchen, respectively on the wall of the mainstairway and on the jamb between the foyer and the kitchen.
(iv). There was no blood on the kitchen door.
(v). There was no blood on the kitchen phone.
(vi). There was a struggle in the kitchen between Nevill and the killer.
(vii). Nevill was shot upstairs, roughly four times according to the Crown, and then four more times in the kitchen.
(viii). Nevill moved himself from upstairs to the kitchen - according to the Crown.
I find it difficult to reconcile all this with Jeremy being the killer, simply because in those circumstances:
(a). Jeremy would have already fired at June upstairs and left her seriously injured.
(b). Nevill must have been running for the kitchen phone. Why else would he run for the kitchen rather than stay upstairs and try to save Sheila and June?
(c). Nevill was already gravely injured, according to the Crown, yet he is able to move from one part of the house to another with the killer in pursuit.
Was there something else, other than the phone, in the kitchen itself or something in a different part of the house that required him to go via the kitchen?
If Nevill is running for the kitchen phone, then this does not have to be a completely rational decision. Nevill, we assume, is injured in the face/jaw, but it doesn't follow that he would not try to dial 999.
If there is no blood on the kitchen door, this suggests that the kitchen door was already open and Nevill does not try to block his attacker by shutting the door behind him.
If there is no blood on the kitchen phone, then this means Nevill never reached the phone.
Yet Nevill has left behind his wife and daughter, and is injured, because he wants to reach the phone.
There are blood prints on the worktop near the phone.
It seems to me there are two main possibilities:
1. Jeremy was the killer and caught up with Nevill just as he reached the worktop. They then struggle (or whatever happened next).
2. Sheila was the killer and the kitchen struggle occurred at the beginning of the incident. Nevill is already injured and goes for the phone again but Sheila stops him.
I have to say that 2 does seem to me more credible. If Sheila was the attacker, Nevill would have been quite hesitant about what he was doing, especially if it was early in the incident and he had already spoken to Jeremy.
The problem with 1 is that, if you look at the position of the prints and also consider the narrowness and steepness of the hallway stairs, Nevill had the advantage and would surely have reached the phone in any event. If Jeremy had already opened the line, all Nevill had to do was replace the receiver, take it off again, and dial three digits - which takes seconds. Thus, not to touch the phone must have been a choice - it's much more likely he makes that choice for Sheila rather than Jeremy.
There are two ways the Crown could overcome this:
Solution 1: Nevill reached the phone but the abortive/broken 999 call was not recorded at that time; furthermore, even if the line had remained open at the caller's end, it would have been terminated by the operator after a short period of time, and no further investigation would have occurred. Jeremy took it on himself to wipe the phone clean of blood, thinking that blood on the phone would be inconsistent with the staged call from Nevill.
Solution 2: Nevill reached the phone but Jeremy stopped him just as he was re-dialling. A police officer used the kitchen phone on the morning of the 7th., wiping it clean of blood, and this has never been recorded or admitted, perhaps because only one officer was aware of it having happened and he didn't realise the significance of what he was doing at the time.
Solution 1 can only be confirmed by somebody with knowledge of how emergency calls worked at that time, but in any event, this gives me another thought about a possible kernel for Jeremy's idea of staging a call from Nevill.
One theory I have is that he got the idea due to a genuine call from Nevill that I hypothesise was made the previous evening and that may have catalysed his rage, but there is an alternative possibility.
It's possible that Jeremy got the idea for staging a call after terminating Nevill's abortive 999 call. This may have occurred to him due to the fear (whether justified or not) that the police could and would trace back Nevill's unsuccessful call and so he decided there and then that he would have to stage a call from Nevill to himself, thinking (rightly or wrongly) that this would somehow cover him. He then realises also that a call to Julie may help him, so he rings her at about the same time that he rings the police.
1. Let's get one thing straight: Sheila was not on trial.
2. a b c are correct. I suppose Nevill could be looking for a kitchen knife. Mike has previously claimed that Nevill always slept with a rifle under the bed.
3. The state of Sheila's face suggests she had not been involved in exertion. This has been discussed many times before here.
-
3. The state of Sheila's face suggests she had not been involved in exertion. This has been discussed many times before here.
She did not exert herself while Jeremy was murdering her parents and twin sons? What was she doing, given that we can't prove she was sedated?
Was she just fast asleep?
-
She did not exert herself while Jeremy was murdering her parents and twin sons? What was she doing, given that we can't prove she was sedated?
Was she just fast asleep?
Everything points to that, yes.
-
Everything points to that, yes.
It is possible, but it doesn't seem very plausible - especially given the close proximity of the three bedrooms. You are basically telling us that she slept through most of the mayhem, perhaps awakening drowsily but not reacting quick enough to stop Jeremy manhandling her into the master bedroom.
Let's say this is it.
Wouldn't she struggle with Jeremy and try to run?
How come Jeremy leaves no blood trail in the second bedroom and in the master bedroom?
How come Sheila has no blood on her feet?
If you have Sheila going to the master bedroom of her own accord, again how does she not get blood on her feet? How does she not get June's blood all over her? Why doesn't she check on the twins and leave blood in the twins' bedroom?
If you have Jeremy carrying her to the master bedroom, how does Jeremy incapacitate her to do this? And why doesn't she struggle with Jeremy, given that he won't be holding the rifle? Or do you think she slept through that too?
That being said, you're the Bachelor of Education, Mrs Smerchanski - with Honours too - so I assume you'll come up with a coherent explanation for all this.
Perhaps murdering people is something you have experience in? Maybe insider knowledge, even?
-
It is possible, but it doesn't seem very plausible - especially given the close proximity of the three bedrooms. You are basically telling us that she slept through most of the mayhem, perhaps awakening drowsily but not reacting quick enough to stop Jeremy manhandling her into the master bedroom.
Let's say this is it.
Wouldn't she struggle with Jeremy and try to run?
How come Jeremy leaves no blood trail in the second bedroom and in the master bedroom?
How come Sheila has no blood on her feet?
If you have Sheila going to the master bedroom of her own accord, again how does she not get blood on her feet? How does she not get June's blood all over her? Why doesn't she check on the twins and leave blood in the twins' bedroom?
If you have Jeremy carrying her to the master bedroom, how does Jeremy incapacitate her to do this? And why doesn't she struggle with Jeremy, given that he won't be holding the rifle? Or do you think she slept through that too?
That being said, you're the Bachelor of Education, Mrs Smerchanski - with Honours too - so I assume you'll come up with a coherent explanation for all this.
Perhaps murdering people is something you have experience in? Maybe insider knowledge, even?
I'm actually a PGCE, but I digress. Sheila just didn't know what was happening to her, it all occurring in a matter of seconds. She was led to her death like a lamb to the slaughter, and had no awareness of the situation which awaited her in the master bedroom. As for the twins, the whole history of her being in sole charge of them in London was one of neglect, certainly not intentionally, but because she simply didn't have the energy to manage them on a daily basis. She could just about muster a weekend visit to Paddington Recreation Ground, where they sailed high on the swings: otherwise she often couldn't get them ready for school in time, Nicholas had a scald which Sheila either didn't notice or was slow to acknowledge and take him to the doctor's, he also fell out of a London taxi following a row between her and June at White House Farm and Sheila was in a state rushing back home.
Don't you see a pattern emerging here? As for Jeremy, he probably wore a coat, gloves and mask and kept all five at bay with the element of surprise. High on some narcotic cocktail he wouldn't recall much of the events 30 years later, hence his success in fooling the lie detector, like the Green River killer.
-
Don't you see a pattern emerging here? As for Jeremy, he probably wore a coat, gloves and mask and kept all five at bay with the element of surprise. High on some narcotic cocktail he wouldn't recall much of the events 30 years later, hence his success in fooling the lie detector, like the Green River killer.
I'm not sure about your claim that it was all over in a matter of seconds, simply because the context to the situation is that you have her asleep.
In all seriousness Steve, I'm just trying to be logical about it.
However, your comment above about Jeremy's memory and sense of responsibility being affected by drugs is, in all seriousness, excellent. I have been thinking along the same lines and this whole issue of how drugs affected Jeremy's reasoning and intellect interests me greatly, and I really hadn't thought of that point you have just made. Genuinely, thank you.
-
I'm actually a PGCE, but I digress. Sheila just didn't know what was happening to her, it all occurring in a matter of seconds. She was led to her death like a lamb to the slaughter, and had no awareness of the situation which awaited her in the master bedroom. As for the twins, the whole history of her being in sole charge of them in London was one of neglect, certainly not intentionally, but because she simply didn't have the energy to manage them on a daily basis. She could just about muster a weekend visit to Paddington Recreation Ground, where they sailed high on the swings: otherwise she often couldn't get them ready for school in time, Nicholas had a scald which Sheila either didn't notice or was slow to acknowledge and take him to the doctor's, he also fell out of a London taxi following a row between her and June at White House Farm and Sheila was in a state rushing back home.
Don't you see a pattern emerging here? As for Jeremy, he probably wore a coat, gloves and mask and kept all five at bay with the element of surprise. High on some narcotic cocktail he wouldn't recall much of the events 30 years later, hence his success in fooling the lie detector, like the Green River killer.
You idiot, I cannot even bear to read your posts. Sheila was ill, desperately ill and capable of anything. Your weirdness is truly disturbing. God knows who you really are defending the vile Mugford.
Maybe you would like to write chapter and verse on how such a dangerous women was allowed to work with children and were the parents aware of her history.
You need help
-
I've personally never had an issue with Steve, even though I've always had an awareness of his immovable stance on the case, in the face of all posts or claims to the contrary. He is certainly obdurate. I think I just wrote it off in my mind as being a given, no matter what.
Hey Steve, you're taking a bit of a battering at the moment :)) Never mind eh, I'm sure you'll survive. An old timer on here, like me.
-
I've personally never had an issue with Steve, even though I've always had an awareness of his immovable stance on the case, in the face of all posts or claims to the contrary. He is certainly obdurate. I think I just wrote it off in my mind as being a given, no matter what.
Hey Steve, you're taking a bit of a battering at the moment :)) Never mind eh, I'm sure you'll survive. An old timer on here, like me.
Let’s remember Sheila on all this. How dare he talk about someone who had critical mental health issues. Unforgivable
-
I've personally never had an issue with Steve, even though I've always had an awareness of his immovable stance on the case, in the face of all posts or claims to the contrary. He is certainly obdurate. I think I just wrote it off in my mind as being a given, no matter what.
Hey Steve, you're taking a bit of a battering at the moment :)) Never mind eh, I'm sure you'll survive. An old timer on here, like me.
[/qu
Let’s remember Sheila was not responsible for her actions and I am sure it was discussed after the murders whether she had ever been well enough to
leave hospital
On the other hand Julie Mugford knew exactly what she was doing whether Jeremy was innocent or guilty and when an honest factual series is finally made about the Whitehouse Farm Murders is made Julie Mugford will be famous for all the worst reasons.
-
Let’s remember Sheila was not responsible for her actions and I am sure it was discussed after the murders whether she had ever been well enough to
leave hospital
On the other hand Julie Mugford knew exactly what she was doing whether Jeremy was innocent or guilty and when an honest factual series is finally made about the Whitehouse Farm Murders is made Julie Mugford will be famous for all the worst reasons.
It is interesting how Julie Mugford is being whitewashed in all this. The way some people go on, you'd think she was a robot being programmed by Jeremy, with no agency of her own. Similarly, with Jeremy. He is portrayed as robot-like too, but in a different way: as a singular killer, cold-blooded and evil, like the malignant android out the James Cameron blockbuster, 'The Terminator', released in the cinemas round about that time. Perhaps Jeremy saw the film and took inspiration?
If, instead, we approach them all as complex, multifaceted individuals, the glib simplifications can be put aside.
Likewise, I think, with Sheila. Schizophrenia is an extreme psychosis involving delusional thinking that can be distressing to the sufferer and result in violence. It doesn't completely abdicate criminal responsibility, though. I know the tendency to absolve Sheila is well-meaning, but Sheila was still an adult and could make her own decisions. She was under treatment.
As with Julie, character assessments of Sheila seem to come out of Schrödinger's box territory. She was well and the treatment was working. She wasn't well and the treatment wasn't working. She couldn't put beans on top of toast. She could do her nails and make-up. She was a loving mother. She was violent. Colin was worried about leaving the twins with her. Colin left the twins with her. Colin was worried about the influence of June on the twins. Colin left the twins with June. We're told that this treatment for Sheila was successful. We're told it wasn't.
Meanwhile, we're assured that Jeremy was perfectly sane and in control of himself, yet he behaved in all these strange ways, they tell us. That's because he was a psychopath, you see. Was he?
It seems there are multiple realities here and which applies depends on what suits the argument at that moment.
-
It is interesting how Julie Mugford is being whitewashed in all this. The way some people go on, you'd think she was a robot being programmed by Jeremy, with no agency of her own. Similarly, with Jeremy. He is portrayed as robot-like too, but in a different way: as a singular killer, cold-blooded and evil, like the malignant android out the James Cameron blockbuster, 'The Terminator', released in the cinemas round about that time. Perhaps Jeremy saw the film and took inspiration?
If, instead, we approach them all as complex, multifaceted individuals, the glib simplifications can be put aside.
Likewise, I think, with Sheila. Schizophrenia is an extreme psychosis involving delusional thinking that can be distressing to the sufferer and result in violence. It doesn't completely abdicate criminal responsibility, though. I know the tendency to absolve Sheila is well-meaning, but Sheila was still an adult and could make her own decisions. She was under treatment.
As with Julie, character assessments of Sheila seem to come out of Schrödinger's box territory. She was well and the treatment was working. She wasn't well and the treatment wasn't working. She couldn't put beans on top of toast. She could do her nails and make-up. She was a loving mother. She was violent. Colin was worried about leaving the twins with her. Colin left the twins with her. Colin was worried about the influence of June on the twins. Colin left the twins with June. We're told that this treatment for Sheila was successful. We're told it wasn't.
Meanwhile, we're assured that Jeremy was perfectly sane and in control of himself, yet he behaved in all these strange ways, they tell us. That's because he was a psychopath, you see. Was he?
It seems there are multiple realities here and which applies depends on what suits the argument at that moment.
Any excuses for ms Mugford and her behaviour. There doesn’t appear to be or maybe just born evil ?
-
Well, if it wasn't the lead detectives from the second investigation, it would have to be the lead detectives of the first investigation. Unless, you are asserting West acted independently? That seems absurd.
Nobody changed, manipulated or covered up anything regarding the emergency calls period.
-
Nobody changed, manipulated or covered up anything regarding the emergency calls period.
Actually, that's not quite true. At least one basic fact was changed about those calls and that's officially part of the Crown's case.
-
Actually, that's not quite true. At least one basic fact was changed about those calls and that's officially part of the Crown's case.
West admitting to a mistake on the clock is not altering anything.
-
Nobody changed, manipulated or covered up anything regarding the emergency calls period.
The altered documents are on this forum. It is widely known in the case, that West rewrote his log.
However, he did not alter the time. He re-wrote the log for another reason.
-
West admitting to a mistake on the clock is not altering anything.
It bloody well is!
-
You idiot, I cannot even bear to read your posts. Sheila was ill, desperately ill and capable of anything. Your weirdness is truly disturbing. God knows who you really are defending the vile Mugford.
Maybe you would like to write chapter and verse on how such a dangerous women was allowed to work with children and were the parents aware of her history.
You need help
Good you could drop by Jackie.
-
The altered documents are on this forum. It is widely known in the case, that West rewrote his log.
However, he did not alter the time. He re-wrote the log for another reason.
A carbon copy of his log that was updated by his duty manger is not an alteration that’s normal procedures. 😂
-
The altered documents are on this forum. It is widely known in the case, that West rewrote his log.
However, he did not alter the time. He re-wrote the log for another reason.
I didn't know that. I thought the issue was that Bonnett may have taken two calls and merged his record of them together on a single call log, the idea being that a telephone log is just a running record and if you have a single incident in which, coincidentally, the same call operator is involved, then it's an easy to make the mistake of converging the details and perhaps forgetting an earlier call. Did Bonnett actually receive direct 999 calls? I've never seen that question resolved. The other possibility, which I mooted on the other thread, is that Nevill made an abortive call, and due to his injuries, he couldn't speak down the line so it was terminated.
The irony of all this is that the lack of a 999 call could have undermined the prosecution more than the defence.
Regarding the timings, actually in the end West never admitted that he had got it wrong. It remained in dispute and the judge - supposedly - decided to err on the side of Jeremy Bamber on that point. However the times in West's two statements are in conflict. One has it at 3.26 a.m, the other at 3.36 a.m, and in his evidence at trial it's left open. It's altogether very unsatisfactory. I simply don't understand how somebody can say that West didn't change his evidence or suggest that it is not of significance.
-
A carbon copy of his log that was updated by his duty manger is not an alteration that’s normal procedures. 😂
A carbon copy, with spelling mistakes? I recall there were six different versions. Why would a duty manager wish to create six carbon copies, which aren't exact copies?
I didn't know that. I thought the issue was that Bonnett may have taken two calls and merged his record of them together on a single call log, the idea being that a telephone log is just a running record and if you have a single incident in which, coincidentally, the same call operator is involved, then it's an easy to make the mistake of converging the details and perhaps forgetting an earlier call. Did Bonnett actually receive direct 999 calls? I've never seen that question resolved. The other possibility, which I mooted on the other thread, is that Nevill made an abortive call, and due to his injuries, he couldn't speak down the line so it was terminated.
The irony of all this is that the lack of a 999 call could have undermined the prosecution more than the defence.
Regarding the timings, actually in the end West never admitted that he had got it wrong. It remained in dispute and the judge - supposedly - decided to err on the side of Jeremy Bamber on that point. However the times in West's two statements are in conflict. One has it at 3.26 a.m, the other at 3.36 a.m, and in his evidence at trial it's left open. It's altogether very unsatisfactory. I simply don't understand how somebody can say that West didn't change his evidence or suggest that it is not of significance.
The differences between the versions are discussed from page 27 onward, in this document (attached).
-
The differences between the versions are discussed from page 27 onward, in this document (attached).
Thanks.
-
A carbon copy, with spelling mistakes? I recall there were six different versions. Why would a duty manager wish to create six carbon copies, which aren't exact copies?
The differences between the versions are discussed from page 27 onward, in this document (attached).
Anyone with half a brain can look at the bottom of these two logs and work out they are copies. It even states where the original copy should go. The original is numbered (255) while the other copy is updated and signed by his duty sergeant.
-
Anyone with half a brain can look at the bottom of these two logs and work out they are copies. It even states where the original copy should go. The original is numbered (255) while the other copy is updated and signed by his duty sergeant.
Anyone with half a brain can observe the indicated spelling mistakes. How can you have a carbon copy with differences in spelling between the two versions? And what about the other four versions?
-
Anyone with half a brain can observe the indicated spelling mistakes. How can you have a carbon copy with differences in spelling between the two versions? And what about the other four versions?
Anyone with half a brain can observe that "despatched" and "scene" are spelled the same in both copies.
The other four versions exist only in the imagination of those who made that PDF document. The same people who cant read the measurements of the silencer properly. The same people who claimed there was no paint found on the silencer in August when the August lab documents shows paint was found. The same people who said Sheila rang an ambulance at 6 AM.
-
Anyone with half a brain can observe that "despatched" and "scene" are spelled the same in both copies.
The other four versions exist only in the imagination of those who made that PDF document. The same people who cant read the measurements of the silencer properly. The same people who claimed there was no paint found on the silencer in August when the August lab documents shows paint was found. The same people who said Sheila rang an ambulance at 6 AM.
Why are you deliberately misrepresenting what is detailed from page 27 onward in the document I attached? You can clearly see where 'scene' is spelled incorrectly. Also where 'illness' has been added. Unless I'm mistaken the document states that 'despatched' has been spelled incorrectly in both documents. And the same people who pointed out the diagram which shows the same blood group as PB/DB in the sound moderator. You are prepared to accept where it shows the same blood group as SC/RB, as per the Crown's case, but can't bring your self to give parity to the other blood grouping. I've never been a fan of the 6am 999 call.
-
Why are you deliberately misrepresenting what is detailed from page 27 onward in the document I attached? You can clearly see where 'scene' is spelled incorrectly. Also where 'illness' has been added. Unless I'm mistaken the document states that 'despatched' has been spelled incorrectly in both documents. And the same people who pointed out the diagram which shows the same blood group as PB/DB in the sound moderator. You are prepared to accept where it shows the same blood group as SC/RB, as per the Crown's case, but can't bring your self to give parity to the other blood grouping. I've never been a fan of the 6am 999 call.
I am not misrepresenting anything. Both documents clearly show 'scene' and 'despatched' are identical in both. The word Illness is not even in that same handwriting as the rest of what West has written. Its the same handwriting as the duty sergeant who updated that copy of the C1
-
I am not misrepresenting anything. Both documents clearly show 'scene' and 'despatched' are identical in both. The word Illness is not even in that same handwriting as the rest of what West has written. Its the same handwriting as the duty sergeant who updated that copy of the C1
Logic dictates that all the amendments have been done by the guy who signed the copy (bottom right) with the information added.
(https://i.ibb.co/pbG50kB/logs66i.png)
-
Logic dictates that all the amendments have been done by the guy who signed the copy (bottom right) with the information added.
(https://i.ibb.co/pbG50kB/logs66i.png)
For those who believe the red text added to the copy is a result of covering up a 999 call from Nevill. Would you care to explain how it does so?
-
For those who believe the red text added to the copy is a result of covering up a 999 call from Nevill. Would you care to explain how it does so?
Are those who subscribe to the notion of Nevill calling 999 going to provide an explanation? Or am I just going to be left with the sound of crickets?
-
Are those who subscribe to the notion of Nevill calling 999 going to provide an explanation? Or am I just going to be left with the sound of crickets?
That can't be addressed to me, as I have never fully espoused that Nevill made a 999 call. I havent had time to revisit the doc I uploaded. BTW 'scene and scence' are not the same spelling of 'scene'.
-
If you doubt the 999 call Nevill is supposed to have made to Police why are you so sure about the call to Jeremy around the same time?
-
Are those who subscribe to the notion of Nevill calling 999 going to provide an explanation? Or am I just going to be left with the sound of crickets?
I'm undecided on the point and would like to consider the evidence further and reflect.
I also think that the discovery of a 999 call from Nevill would not necessarily assist the defence, in fact it could undermine them. It very much would depend on the timing of the call.
-
I'm undecided on the point and would like to consider the evidence further and reflect.
I also think that the discovery of a 999 call from Nevill would not necessarily assist the defence, in fact it could undermine them. It very much would depend on the timing of the call.
No it would cast serious doubt on Jeremy's culpability and he would have to be released.
-
I'm undecided on the point and would like to consider the evidence further and reflect.
I also think that the discovery of a 999 call from Nevill would not necessarily assist the defence, in fact it could undermine them. It very much would depend on the timing of the call.
Discovery of a 999 call from Nevill.
What police clerk was on filing duty on the Bamber case in 1985?
-
No it would cast serious doubt on Jeremy's culpability and he would have to be released.
Again, as usual, you don't pay attention to what I am saying and you quote selectively.
I stated that it would depend on the timing of the call.
-
Discovery of a 999 call from Nevill.
What police clerk was on filing duty on the Bamber case in 1985?
I didn't say there was a 999 call from Nevill.
-
I'm undecided on the point and would like to consider the evidence further and reflect.
I also think that the discovery of a 999 call from Nevill would not necessarily assist the defence, in fact it could undermine them. It very much would depend on the timing of the call.
Its been alleged that Wests call to Bonnet is actually Nevill calling them and implicating Sheila.
Obviously a call from Nevill implicating Sheila would demolish the whole case, however there was no such call. Its a result of sloppy research and zero critical thinking.
The whole thing does a great amount of harm to Jeremy's campaign. To reasonable supporters it makes the campaign team look incompetent and to those who believe Jeremy is guilty, it makes the campaign team look dishonest and deceitful.
-
Its been alleged that Wests call to Bonnet is actually Nevill calling them and implicating Sheila.
Obviously a call from Nevill implicating Sheila would demolish the whole case, however there was no such call. Its a result of sloppy research and zero critical thinking.
The whole thing does a great amount of harm to Jeremy's campaign. To reasonable supporters it makes the campaign team look incompetent and to those who believe Jeremy is guilty, it makes the campaign team look dishonest and deceitful.
Hear hear..
-
That can't be addressed to me, as I have never fully espoused that Nevill made a 999 call. I havent had time to revisit the doc I uploaded. BTW 'scene and scence' are not the same spelling of 'scene'.
They are identical on both copies. I have inverted the colours on one copy and overlapped them with a transparency filter.
They are IDENTICAL.
-
Its been alleged that Wests call to Bonnet is actually Nevill calling them and implicating Sheila.
Obviously a call from Nevill implicating Sheila would demolish the whole case, however there was no such call. Its a result of sloppy research and zero critical thinking.
The whole thing does a great amount of harm to Jeremy's campaign. To reasonable supporters it makes the campaign team look incompetent and to those who believe Jeremy is guilty, it makes the campaign team look dishonest and deceitful.
I'm not necessarily only referring to a call from Nevill implicating Sheila. Obviously THAT would demolish the whole case, but that's necessarily the only thing I'm referring to. There are other permutations to it.
No offence, but like Steve, you've got the wrong end of the stick in terms of what I'm driving at. In Steve's case, it's probably on purpose, to generate mischief.
I have no view about a 999 call one way or the other. I'd like to reserve my position, please. Is that OK with you and Steve, or do I need your written permission?
And with respect, I hold no brief for Jeremy or the authorities. I'm neutral. I'm not responsible for how the man's campaign looks or is perceived by the public. How's that my responsibility? I'm not even one of his supporters.
Internet forums can be useful, but sometimes it can get bloody annoying. People 'accidentally on purpose' misunderstand and misconstrue what's being said.
-
They are IDENTICAL.
CA5 to scence. CA5 to scene.
-
CA5 to scence. CA5 to scene.
In this case the entire sentence has been re-written. As it does not overlap with everything else on all other lines.
https://streamable.com/j2sqyf (https://streamable.com/j2sqyf)
The duty sergeant G.White for some reason has rubbed it out and re-written it. The same for Nevills age also. The logical inference would be G.White felt certain things were illegible or wanted to correct typos.
-
In this case the entire sentence has been re-written. As it does not overlap with everything else on all other lines.
https://streamable.com/j2sqyf (https://streamable.com/j2sqyf)
The duty sergeant G.White for some reason has rubbed it out and re-written it. The same for Nevills age also. The logical inference would be G.White felt certain things were illegible or wanted to correct typos.
Is G White an English language guardian angel?
-
In this case the entire sentence has been re-written. As it does not overlap with everything else on all other lines.
https://streamable.com/j2sqyf (https://streamable.com/j2sqyf)
The duty sergeant G.White for some reason has rubbed it out and re-written it. The same for Nevills age also. The logical inference would be G.White felt certain things were illegible or wanted to correct typos.
It is this that is important. What is the reason for the rewriting? I suspect that it is something to do with preventing ESDA testing on the original. EP seem very determined to prevent this possibility.
-
It is this that is important. What is the reason for the rewriting? I suspect that it is something to do with preventing ESDA testing on the original. EP seem very determined to prevent this possibility.
The Duty Sergeant who signed off the copy added details and corrected illegible writing.
-
The Duty Sergeant who signed off the copy added details and corrected illegible writing.
When did this happen?
-
The Duty Sergeant who signed off the copy added details and corrected illegible writing.
Was it in 1990/1 immediately prior to the COLP investigation?
-
Was it in 1990/1 immediately prior to the COLP investigation?
I very much doubt it. Why would it take 6 years to update a log?
-
I very much doubt it. Why would it take 6 years to update a log?
Given EP's curation rather than preservation of evidence over the years it would be unwise to assume that anything done by them regarding evidence in this case has an innocent explanation, especially where an innocent explanation isn't readily apparent.
The ongoing curation of the photographic negatives tells us this. EP remove more negatives prior to every defence expert visit giving risible explanations each time.
I am just curious when these alterations took place and the real reasons for this. Knowing when it happened may help to inform why it happened.
-
Given EP's curation rather than preservation of evidence over the years it would be unwise to assume that anything done by them regarding evidence in this case has an innocent explanation, especially where an innocent explanation isn't readily apparent.
The ongoing curation of the photographic negatives tells us this. EP remove more negatives prior to every defence expert visit giving risible explanations each time.
I am just curious when these alterations took place and the real reasons for this. Knowing when it happened may help to inform why it happened.
I will go some distance in agreeing with you there. I think their conduct of the evidence post-trial is suspicious in the extreme, has introduced prejudice, and, in my view, potentially renders the convictions unsatisfactory.
-
Given EP's curation rather than preservation of evidence over the years it would be unwise to assume that anything done by them regarding evidence in this case has an innocent explanation, especially where an innocent explanation isn't readily apparent.
The ongoing curation of the photographic negatives tells us this. EP remove more negatives prior to every defence expert visit giving risible explanations each time.
I am just curious when these alterations took place and the real reasons for this. Knowing when it happened may help to inform why it happened.
To me its rather simple. The duty sergeant who signed of the copy on the right. Updated it with additional information and corrected illegible text like Nevills age for example. The typed text on the logs state that copies should exist and a duty sergeant should check and sign it.
(https://i.ibb.co/pbG50kB/logs66i.png)
-
Was it in 1990/1 immediately prior to the COLP investigation?
Yes, it was forged before the COLP investigation in 1990/91 so as to thwart ESDA testing. Luckily for EP PC West was still around to assist with the forgery. But still couldn’t spell, or copy accurately from the 1985 version of the form.
-
Yes, it was forged before the COLP investigation in 1990/91 so as to thwart ESDA testing. Luckily for EP PC West was still around to assist with the forgery. But still couldn’t spell, or copy accurately from the 1985 version of the form.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
-
In this case the entire sentence has been re-written. As it does not overlap with everything else on all other lines.
https://streamable.com/j2sqyf (https://streamable.com/j2sqyf)
The duty sergeant G.White for some reason has rubbed it out and re-written it. The same for Nevills age also. The logical inference would be G.White felt certain things were illegible or wanted to correct typos.
The rewritten sentence with the misspelling of scene as "scence" is in PC West's handwriting.
The sentence "C A 5 To scence" is in the copy signed by PS G White which shows the sergeants handwriting in the result box and his signature below it. His writing is obviously different to that of West.
You have coloured red additions made by West some time after the log was written, but you have not coloured red the sentence "C A 5 To scence", which you also claim was written by White. At any rate the additions like "illness" (after the word "mental") and "age 62", said of Nevill Bamber, are in the handwriting of PC West.
West's handwriting
Notice West writes some lower case letters as capitals, but smaller. His "e" and his "t" are written like that. Also his "n" is the same shape in both copies. PS G White would need to be an expert forger to fake West's handwriting so well. It would have been much simpler for DCS Ainsley to get West himself to do it.
West must have been asked to write parts of the log again. Perhaps the police were looking for an excuse not to hand over the original log and they thought that producing an improved version with clearer writing in certain places would explain withholding the original which was thought to be below the required standard.
Remember that the reason given for cutting out negatives from from the strips was that the removed images were thought to be sub-standard. It seems like another instance of an old and familiar routine to justify withholding crucial evidence which could prove something once and for all.
The most serious mistake anybody can make about the Bamber case is to assume that that the authorities have been acting in good faith.
Here are the two logs put together by you for comparison. There can be no doubt that West rewrote the parts in red apart from the content of the result box and the signature by PS G White.
(https://i.ibb.co/D7NCFsr/West-forgery.png)
-
The rewritten sentence with the misspelling of scene as "scence" is in PC West's handwriting.
The sentence "C A 5 To scence" is in the copy signed by PS G White which shows the sergeants handwriting in the result box and his signature below it. His writing is obviously different to that of West.
You have coloured red additions made by West some time after the log was written, but you have not coloured red the sentence "C A 5 To scence", which you also claim was written by White. At any rate the additions like "illness" (after the word "mental") and "age 62", said of Nevill Bamber, are in the handwriting of PC West.
West's handwriting
Notice West writes some lower case letters as capitals, but smaller. His "e" and his "t" are written like that. Also his "n" is the same shape in both copies. PS G White would need to be an expert forger to fake West's handwriting so well. It would have been much simpler for DCS Ainsley to get West himself to do it.
West must have been asked to write parts of the log again. Perhaps the police were looking for an excuse not to hand over the original log and they thought that producing an improved version with clearer writing in certain places would explain withholding the original which was thought to be below the required standard.
Remember that the reason given for cutting out negatives from from the strips was that the removed images were thought to be sub-standard. It seems like another instance of an old and familiar routine to justify withholding crucial evidence which could prove something once and for all.
The most serious mistake anybody can make about the Bamber case is to assume that that the authorities have been acting in good faith.
Here are the two logs put together by you for comparison. There can be no doubt that West rewrote the parts in red apart from the content of the result box and the signature by PS G White.
(https://i.ibb.co/D7NCFsr/West-forgery.png)
How does West rewriting one sentence with a spelling mistake show a cover-up of a call from Nevill?
-
How does West rewriting one sentence with a spelling mistake show a cover-up of a call from Nevill?
Your research and subsequent rebuttals to other researchers can add to the forum - but in this instance, to me you seem to be misrepresenting the argument.
-
Your research and subsequent rebuttals to other researchers can add to the forum - but in this instance, to me you seem to be misrepresenting the argument.
How am I misrepresenting the argument? The whole premise for this being brought up is to claim Nevil rang the police and the police covered it up.
-
Yes, it was forged before the COLP investigation in 1990/91 so as to thwart ESDA testing. Luckily for EP PC West was still around to assist with the forgery. But still couldn’t spell, or copy accurately from the 1985 version of the form.
Could you add any detail to this, Bill?
-
Could you add any detail to this, Bill?
I will see what information I have and will respond then.
-
I will see what information I have and will respond then.
Thanks
-
I will see what information I have and will respond then.
Have you found anything?
-
PC West was threatened with prosecution during COLP but he avoided prosecution. Not sure if this was linked to the C1's.
-
PC West was threatened with prosecution during COLP but he avoided prosecution. Not sure if this was linked to the C1's.
Where is this from?
-
Probably reneging about the telephone calls which he covered up.
-
West had answered Jeremy's call and Bonnet had answered Nevill's call which was before the call that Jeremy had made . West told Bonnet about Jeremy's call so Bonnet passed off Jeremy's call as being to him to disguise the fact of Nevill's call being made-----------------------follow that ;D ;D
-
PC West was threatened with prosecution during COLP but he avoided prosecution. Not sure if this was linked to the C1's.
I don't think that's true Roch.
-
West had answered Jeremy's call and Bonnet had answered Nevill's call which was before the call that Jeremy had made . West told Bonnet about Jeremy's call so Bonnet passed off Jeremy's call as being to him to disguise the fact of Nevill's call being made-----------------------follow that ;D ;D
Why?
-
West had answered Jeremy's call and Bonnet had answered Nevill's call which was before the call that Jeremy had made . West told Bonnet about Jeremy's call so Bonnet passed off Jeremy's call as being to him to disguise the fact of Nevill's call being made-----------------------follow that ;D ;D
Last time this was brought up in Bills “undisputed timeline” you believed West took both Nevil and Jeremy’s call ???
-
I don't think that's true Roch.
It's definitely ringing a bell with me.
-
It's definitely ringing a bell with me.
First I have heard about it. Until evidence is posted, Hitchens's razor is in effect.
-
Last time this was brought up in Bills “undisputed timeline” you believed West took both Nevil and Jeremy’s call ???
Not impossible.
-
A window of 11 minutes with JB's call preceding NB's earlier call while West was relaying NB's call to Bonnet during which West was also taking JB's call---03.26 ( NB )--03.36.( JB )
Is there only I who can see what happened ? Pity EP couldn't at the time, dozy sods.
-
A window of 11 minutes with JB's call preceding NB's earlier call while West was relaying NB's call to Bonnet during which West was also taking JB's call---03.26 ( NB )--03.36.( JB )
Is there only I who can see what happened ? Pity EP couldn't at the time, dozy sods.
The point is lookout: why cover it up at that stage? Jeremy wasn't a suspect yet and Taff Jones the boss would have welcomed the news which put him in the clear.
-
The point is lookout: why cover it up at that stage? Jeremy wasn't a suspect yet and Taff Jones the boss would have welcomed the news which put him in the clear.
It wasn't so much a cover-up initially. It wasn't until EP had realised that there'd been two separate calls that they began to dither over their stupidity and incompetence-----then they tried to hide the fact that there'd been two calls ( a you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, moment )
The penny must have dropped that, yes indeed, there WERE two Bambers.
-
It must have confused EP enormously to hear " Mr Bamber here "-----probably sounding like an echo to them.
-
It must have confused EP enormously to hear " Mr Bamber here "-----probably sounding like an echo to them.
So sad he wasn't a puppeteer.
-
So sad he wasn't a puppeteer.
Another one for the archives.
Thanks Steve.
-
So sad he wasn't a puppeteer.
Steve, I honestly think this happened. Few people back then gave their Christian name unless asked.
-
Another bizarre thing was when JB was arrested for a petty/foolish crime of breaking into the office at Osea was when he pulled up his sweater over his head to hide his shame----rightly so, but------after 5 people had been found murdered he'd held his head high in defiance of having had anything to do with it.
Surely, he'd have wanted the full cover of a blanket if he'd been guilty ? Talk about giving a dog a bad name. I admire his determination over these years in finding just the smallest thing that will free him.
The more the time goes on the more the compensation will build and sadly the less likely he'll be of ever gaining freedom.
-
Another bizarre thing was when JB was arrested for a petty/foolish crime of breaking into the office at Osea was when he pulled up his sweater over his head to hide his shame----rightly so, but------after 5 people had been found murdered he'd held his head high in defiance of having had anything to do with it.
Surely, he'd have wanted the full cover of a blanket if he'd been guilty ? Talk about giving a dog a bad name. I admire his determination over these years in finding just the smallest thing that will free him.
The more the time goes on the more the compensation will build and sadly the less likely he'll be of ever gaining freedom.
But he was an unknown quantity at that point (dare I use the word incognito?) whereas by the time of the trial the identity of the defendant was well known.
-
But he was an unknown quantity at that point (dare I use the word incognito?) whereas by the time of the trial the identity of the defendant was well known.
He'd have remained " incognito " if he'd have carried out the murders as many murderers do when you see them with covers draped over their person. Unless he was a prize nut-case of which it hasn't been proven.
-
Tapes of these phone-calls were purported to have been destroyed, but were kept and copied. The court never got to hear these tapes ( copies ) as there'd have been a distinct difference in both voices.
-
They've probably remained as part of the hidden stash of TRUE evidence since September 1985. PII----until someone else falls off their perch.
-
What CAN speak, can't lie---namely Nevill Bamber. We've all heard JB's voice.
-
Not impossible.
But totally implausible
-
But totally implausible
Might be to you and most others.
-
I will see what information I have and will respond then.
Have you found anything?
I will take that as a no then.