Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Hartley on February 11, 2011, 02:37:PM
-
Source: http://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html#8897856103087525852
The CCRC have issued their grounds for not referring Jeremy Bamber’s case back to the appeal court these are the main points stated in their documentation.
• Fragmented bullet swapped from Sheila Caffell’s body – CCRC said this was available at trial and therefore cannot be used.
• Photographs showing Sheila Caffell’s body had been moved were not accurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.
• Photographs showing that the gun was moved on Sheila Caffell’s body were also inaccurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.
• No response to the documentation still held under Public Interest Immunity, 340,000 documents.
• No response to negatives still not released to the defence now totalling over 211.
• No mention of the evidence showing that Peter Eaton, Ann Eaton, David Boutflour and Robert Boutflour’s statements conflict with contemporaneous dates showing when the sound moderator was found which was 34 days after the killings and not 3 days after as they said in court.
• No mention of the nail polish chipped from Sheila Caffell appearing at the ‘alleged’ struggle in the kitchen
• No mention about the two sound moderators and how these were merged together by police officers.
• The CCRC found another photometry expert who questioned Peter Sutherst’s methodology in establishing that the scratch marks were not present in the original crime scene photographs. (Jeremy Bamber intends to use Amped 5 software to further support Peter Sutherst’s findings) Nevertheless, Peter Sutherst is one of the UK’s most eminent specialists in this field with over 50 years experience.
Final note: Jeremy has said that he has found the CCRC to be entirely unprofessional in their approach to the evidence submitted from Peter Sutherst as they did not address any problems with his methodology and discuss this with the Defence.
Jeremy Bamber has large teams of people who work for him, these are from many different backgrounds and countries, some are friends and many others offer their professional services pro-bono and want to see justice done. There is currently a mountain of further evidence which Jeremy Bamber will submit to the CCRC in his fight for freedom. The law must bring those to justice who have fabricated evidence in this case. Not one of us or Jeremy will ever give up until this innocent man is set free and justice is finally done.
-
Who was the photographer?????????
-
Who was the photographer?????????
I don't know. I'm not sure it matters though, the statement of a photographer would not override the statements of police officers.
-
perhaps he's flown away!!
-
I wonder who the expert the CCRC found is and how Sutherst views their criticisms.
-
Extract from the CCRC
• Photographs showing Sheila Caffell’s body had been moved were not accurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.
• Photographs showing that the gun was moved on Sheila Caffell’s body were also inaccurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.
This really infuriates me. You might as well take a picture of a white ball and get 25 people to write sworn statements that the ball is black, in which case it must be black!
There used to be a saying that "the camera never lies". Unfortunately people do!
-
I think this is disgusting. They've got photo graphic evidence that the body was moved but because a copper says it wasn't him, thats the law. I just can't belive the audacity of the legal team behind that decision. They may aswell blame Jeremy for moving (staging ) the body as they have blamed him for everything alse with out a bit of concrete evidence.
-
Yes, but the pictures merely show WHAT happened... not when and how. They are not time stamped and there is no order to them so Justice system is bound to take a Police Officers time and date stamped statement as evidence.
I'm not saying whether its right or wrong just that alone the photographs mean nothing more than documenting the out come.
-
Whether the body and rifle were moved or not, it was not the evidence which convicted JB of multiple murder.
-
So what evidence did they have other than a statement of a disgruntled ex girlfriend, druggy and thief who is now living in canada, working as a school teacher and living the good life. Now tell me thats not suspicious. A little helping hand from essex police there, me thinks.
-
Also i don't think the photo's would prove his innocence, but they would show that the crime scene was tampered with whilst in the police's care. This alone should show that it was an unfair trial due to scene staging and he should then be granted a retrial.
-
So what evidence did they have other than a statement of a disgruntled ex girlfriend, druggy and thief who is now living in canada, working as a school teacher and living the good life. Now tell me thats not suspicious. A little helping hand from essex police there, me thinks.
Well it was trial by jury 10-2 verdict so at the time the evidence was deemed sufficient to convict JB.
Since then through various appeals the defence has been unable to produce sufficient evidence to the contrary.
What is it that makes you cerain of his innocence?
-
9 to 3 and he would of walked. I wonder what the views are of the original jurors are today
-
9 to 3 and he would of walked. I wonder what the views are of the original jurors are today
That is a good point and I would love to know what opinion the jurors would have today, in light of the points his appeal brought up.
-
So, if photos lie and people don't, did they take into consideration the statement (withheld from the original trial) in which the firearms officer Julia Jeapes says she saw a gun in the bedroom window BEFORE the police entered the house? Or is photographic memory not admissible?
Woo there.. I never said photo's lie.. but they do not confirm or prove anything that isn't in them/on them. Yes there was the body of sheila with a gun and wounds in one shot. Thats all that picture tells us.. not when it was taken and what happened immediately before that image or immediately after it. Its a photograph not a video.
There is no order, time stamp or markers to tell anyone when they were taken.. so it is mere speculation as to order and time.
Photographic memory would never be admissible as far as I know.... too many contributing factors i.e the person with the memory has emotions and independent thoughts and feelings.
-
So what evidence did they have other than a statement of a disgruntled ex girlfriend, druggy and thief who is now living in canada, working as a school teacher and living the good life. Now tell me thats not suspicious. A little helping hand from essex police there, me thinks.
Well it was trial by jury 10-2 verdict so at the time the evidence was deemed sufficient to convict JB.
Since then through various appeals the defence has been unable to produce sufficient evidence to the contrary.
What is it that makes you cerain of his innocence?
I haven't made my mind up yet in regards to Jeremy Baber's guilt or innocence as I don't feel that I have studied the information sufficiently enough to answer that question yet.
However, I was and am in favour of him getting an appeal or a new trial.
The jury may have had sufficient evidence at that time, but I think new light has been shone on that evidence enough to question its validity.
In regard to the rejection of a new appeal, I am annoyed that the CCRC have taken the Police statements to be more reliable than the photographs. Although I do accept the point made about date and time stamps. And we know the Police never cover up anything don't we!? ::)
I am also annoyed that nothing has been said in regard to the Public Immunity Documents and the negatives that Essex Police Force will not give to the defence.
I am annoyed that Essex Police Force have disposed of some of the case evidence.
I would also question the use of the silencer as evidence. That it sat there for 34 days then was given to the Police in my view taints its use as evidence.
I think that there was reason enough in that appeal to warrant a new trial.
-
Also i don't think the photo's would prove his innocence, but they would show that the crime scene was tampered with whilst in the police's care. This alone should show that it was an unfair trial due to scene staging and he should then be granted a retrial.
You say tampered with but there's no evidence to back that up.. this is the problem.
They went into the farm and then made a mess of things.. you are suggesting they tampered with evidence with a plan in mind. This is not the case.... they believed it was a suicide and murder. No one was tampering with the scene to frame JB. They didn't suspect him at that time. So please stop suggesting that the scene was tampered with.
They went in and did a sloppy job because they thought it was an open and shut case. Bodies are always moved.
i.e. Photorgapher takes a picture of body with gun lying over the body. Officer knocks something or somehow disturbs the scene and says... "oh sorry.. hang on the arm was here.." and the photographer takes another picture... you now have 2 photographs and the wild theories about what went on could be endless.... or totally harmless and bare no relevance to the case.
I really do think there's too much focus on a scene that was in no way set up or tampered with to frame JB. I can't have been... he wasn't suspected then.
-
There are two conflicting views on the photography.
Peter Sutherst's view could change everything on this case.
There is the view - the complete opposite to what Mr Sutherst thinks by the 'expert' commissioned by the CCRC.
One of them is right. I hope that those of us who have taken an interest in the case get some kind of explanation.
I will be seeking an explanation myself.
-
I think that there was reason enough in that appeal to warrant a new trial.
Tricksy, I agree with your last statement.
-
So what evidence did they have other than a statement of a disgruntled ex girlfriend, druggy and thief who is now living in canada, working as a school teacher and living the good life. Now tell me thats not suspicious. A little helping hand from essex police there, me thinks.
So you are saying that it's suspicious that someone can grow up and change from the way they were in their late teens to early 20's? Once your a "disgruntled ex girlfriend, druggy and thief" that's it for life then.. you'll always be that?
From what I've read on the subject with an open mind the evidence against JB was Mugford, the relatives and the sound moderator.. those were the main factors as well as the picture the prosecution painted of Jeremy and his life style behaviour.
Just my opinion.. I'm still undecided as to whether he's guilty or innocent. I do think it needs a retrial but then again I've only seen the evidence that has been posted on the internet.
-
I think that there was reason enough in that appeal to warrant a new trial.
Tricksy, I agree with your last statement.
But it depends what their putting on trial.. a badly executed police investigation or a mans guilt or innocence. One does not make him necessarily innocent and maybe the CCRC think that the errors made change nothing.
I dont know.. just a thought.
-
I think that there was reason enough in that appeal to warrant a new trial.
Tricksy, I agree with your last statement.
:D Thanks.
I remember the case when it happened, although I was in my early teens, so didn't really follow it fully. I am just reading up on it at the moment, so, as I have said before, I haven't reached an opinion as yet on the innocence or guilt of Jeremy Bamber.
IMHO, based on what I have read, he does deserve a new trial.
-
Along with Pete, I have only seen things that Mike has posted or is on Jeremy Bamber's official website. I have never been able to consider the other side of the story.
-
:D Thanks.
I remember the case when it happened, although I was in my early teens, so didn't really follow it fully. I am just reading up on it at the moment, so, as I have said before, I haven't reached an opinion as yet on the innocence or guilt of Jeremy Bamber.
IMHO, based on what I have read, he does deserve a new trial.
Same here. I was 13 years old at the time of the murders and I can vaguely remember it being reported in the news. I have only taken a real interest since 31/01/11 after reading an article in the Daily Mail about Jeremy Bamber's application to the CCRC. I still have a lot of reading to do and have not formed an opinion as to JB's innocence or guilt. However, from what I have read I believe his original trial to be unfair and I believe he deserves a retrial.
-
The evidence just wasn't there was it? There are no photos or other evidence showing that Sheila's body was moved prior to the SOC team moving her arm and the gun. The mantlepiece issue is a bit vague because there doesn't seem to be any specific photos of that area taken after the murders.
-
The evidence just wasn't there was it? There are no photos or other evidence showing that Sheila's body was moved prior to the SOC team moving her arm and the gun. The mantlepiece issue is a bit vague because there doesn't seem to be any specific photos of that area taken after the murders.
I agree Kaldin. The photo's of the mantlepiece are still unclear - I have no idea where the scratches were. I am also unsure why the Jeapes statement wasn't given more mileage. Those are the two things that I need clarity on.
-
The evidence just wasn't there was it? There are no photos or other evidence showing that Sheila's body was moved prior to the SOC team moving her arm and the gun. The mantlepiece issue is a bit vague because there doesn't seem to be any specific photos of that area taken after the murders.
I agree Kaldin. The photo's of the mantlepiece are still unclear - I have no idea where the scratches were. I am also unsure why the Jeapes statement wasn't given more mileage. Those are the two things that I need clarity on.
I don't know if the Jeapes statement was available at the original trial. I think that an appeal has to be based on new stuff which wasn't available at the trial or wasn't known at the time of the trial.
That has been one of the confusing issues on this forum - the difference between evidence which is new and evidence which was known in 1986 or during the appeal of 2002.
-
Please bear in mind that there are still 211 photographs of the scene still undisclosed by Essex Police.
-
As I understand it, the Jeapes statement wasn't available at the 1986 trial. That's what I've read in several places anyway
Do you know when it became available?
-
Please bear in mind that there are still 211 photographs of the scene still undisclosed by Essex Police.
Have they ever given a reason as to why the defence have not received them? Or Copies of them?
-
Yes, but the pictures merely show WHAT happened... not when and how. They are not time stamped and there is no order to them so Justice system is bound to take a Police Officers time and date stamped statement as evidence.
Photographs may not be numbered by order but the negatives are. They would show the sequence. Within the known parameters of the stated time the photo's were taken a fairly accurate time could be deduced. Are the negatives available?
-
Open question : Perverting the course of justice : please comment on english law as to that...
-
This is my first post so please bear with me. I have followed this case from day 1 and do correspond with Jeremy.
What I do not understand. The Log from the Police Station shows that Nevill rang and reported that his daughter (not son) had gone beserk with a gun.
Surely that alone is evidence for a retrial??
-
This is my first post so please bear with me. I have followed this case from day 1 and do correspond with Jeremy.
What I do not understand. The Log from the Police Station shows that Nevill rang and reported that his daughter (not son) had gone beserk with a gun.
Surely that alone is evidence for a retrial??
No he didn't there is no evidence of this. The log shows a call from Jeremy to the police and then an internal call between police officers and nothing else.
-
This is my first post so please bear with me. I have followed this case from day 1 and do correspond with Jeremy.
What I do not understand. The Log from the Police Station shows that Nevill rang and reported that his daughter (not son) had gone beserk with a gun.
Surely that alone is evidence for a retrial??
No.. there are two identical notes which some believe was Jeremy and Neville.. and some believe is just Jeremy and the officer took down the wrong time (3.36am) and when the message was passed on the time of 3.26 was noted as this was the correct time.
I must say I'm in the camp that Neville never rang the Police.
We are asked to believe that both Jeremy and Neville decided to ring the local police station (which meant looking the number up in the phone book) instead of 999. The two notes are the same just written with a different perspective...
"My dad has phoned me to say my sister has gone mad with a gun"
Officer relays message - "Mr Bambers daughter has gone mad with a gun - Source - Jeremy."
It is far more believable that it was a human error in message taking than the alternative... REAL evidence is needed.
-
This is my first post so please bear with me. I have followed this case from day 1 and do correspond with Jeremy.
What I do not understand. The Log from the Police Station shows that Nevill rang and reported that his daughter (not son) had gone beserk with a gun.
Surely that alone is evidence for a retrial??
No he didn't there is no evidence of this. The log shows a call from Jeremy to the police and then an internal call between police officers and nothing else.
-----------------------------------
I disagree...
There are clearly two different messages being recorded, or referred to here, one in which a reference is made to "daughter" and the other "sister", further discrepancies between "has got one of my guns" and "the gun," and additional differences, involving reference to the age of the daughter, or sister...
If this was just a matter of the time being recorded wrongly, as alleged, the contents would be exactly the same, only the times would be recorded differently...
In my opinion...
-
This is my first post so please bear with me. I have followed this case from day 1 and do correspond with Jeremy.
What I do not understand. The Log from the Police Station shows that Nevill rang and reported that his daughter (not son) had gone beserk with a gun.
Surely that alone is evidence for a retrial??
-------------------------
Good points...
-
This is my first post so please bear with me. I have followed this case from day 1 and do correspond with Jeremy.
What I do not understand. The Log from the Police Station shows that Nevill rang and reported that his daughter (not son) had gone beserk with a gun.
Surely that alone is evidence for a retrial??
No he didn't there is no evidence of this. The log shows a call from Jeremy to the police and then an internal call between police officers and nothing else.
-----------------------------------
I disagree...
There are clearly two different messages being recorded, or referred to here, one in which a reference is made to "daughter" and the other "sister", further discrepancies between "has got one of my guns" and "the gun," and additional differences, involving reference to the age of the daughter, or sister...
If this was just a matter of the time being recorded wrongly, as alleged, the contents would be exactly the same, only the times would be recorded differently...
In my opinion...
I agree to disagree. ;)
There was no call from Nevill to the police. In my opinion.
-
This is my first post so please bear with me. I have followed this case from day 1 and do correspond with Jeremy.
What I do not understand. The Log from the Police Station shows that Nevill rang and reported that his daughter (not son) had gone beserk with a gun.
Surely that alone is evidence for a retrial??
No he didn't there is no evidence of this. The log shows a call from Jeremy to the police and then an internal call between police officers and nothing else.
-----------------------------------
I disagree...
There are clearly two different messages being recorded, or referred to here, one in which a reference is made to "daughter" and the other "sister", further discrepancies between "has got one of my guns" and "the gun," and additional differences, involving reference to the age of the daughter, or sister...
If this was just a matter of the time being recorded wrongly, as alleged, the contents would be exactly the same, only the times would be recorded differently...
In my opinion...
I agree to disagree. ;)
There was no call from Nevill to the police. In my opinion.
-----------------------
Jeremy did not make the call at 3:26am, in my opinion, otherwise the only difference in the content of the message, would have been the time, 3:26am, instead of 3:36am...
-
This is my first post so please bear with me. I have followed this case from day 1 and do correspond with Jeremy.
What I do not understand. The Log from the Police Station shows that Nevill rang and reported that his daughter (not son) had gone beserk with a gun.
Surely that alone is evidence for a retrial??
No he didn't there is no evidence of this. The log shows a call from Jeremy to the police and then an internal call between police officers and nothing else.
-----------------------------------
I disagree...
There are clearly two different messages being recorded, or referred to here, one in which a reference is made to "daughter" and the other "sister", further discrepancies between "has got one of my guns" and "the gun," and additional differences, involving reference to the age of the daughter, or sister...
If this was just a matter of the time being recorded wrongly, as alleged, the contents would be exactly the same, only the times would be recorded differently...
In my opinion...
I agree to disagree. ;)
There was no call from Nevill to the police. In my opinion.
-----------------------
Jeremy did not make the call at 3:26am, in my opinion, otherwise the only difference in the content of the message, would have been the time, 3:26am, instead of 3:36am...
Yet Jeremy's call was noted on the 3:26 call.
-
There has been no explanation forthcoming from PC West to account for the differences in the body of the messages, given at 3:36am, and 3:26am, respectively, to satisfy anyones curiosity that both calls could have been made by one, and the same person. If the same person made both calls, or if both records related to the same call, and there was only a dispute about the timing of th call, the content of the message would have been exactly the same except for the time...
Definitely two different calls, made by two different people - Ralph and Jeremy...
How can the contents of the message, and the times the call was allegedly made, both be different, if the same person made the two calls, or the call was a reference to the only call made?
-
There has been no explanation forthcoming from PC West to account for the differences in the body of the messages, given at 3:36am, and 3:26am, respectively, to satisfy anyones curiosity that both calls could have been made by one, and the same person. If the same person made both calls, or if both records related to the same call, and there was only a dispute about the timing of th call, the content of the message would have been exactly the same except for the time...
Definitely two different calls, made by two different people - Ralph and Jeremy...
How can the contents of the message, and the times the call was allegedly made, both be different, if the same person made the two calls, or the call was a reference to the only call made?
No, absolute nonsense. You won't convince me on this one so there isn't much point in trying.
There are logs for one call to the police and nothing more.
-
This is my first post so please bear with me. I have followed this case from day 1 and do correspond with Jeremy.
What I do not understand. The Log from the Police Station shows that Nevill rang and reported that his daughter (not son) had gone beserk with a gun.
Surely that alone is evidence for a retrial??
No he didn't there is no evidence of this. The log shows a call from Jeremy to the police and then an internal call between police officers and nothing else.
-----------------------------------
I disagree...
There are clearly two different messages being recorded, or referred to here, one in which a reference is made to "daughter" and the other "sister", further discrepancies between "has got one of my guns" and "the gun," and additional differences, involving reference to the age of the daughter, or sister...
If this was just a matter of the time being recorded wrongly, as alleged, the contents would be exactly the same, only the times would be recorded differently...
In my opinion...
I agree to disagree. ;)
There was no call from Nevill to the police. In my opinion.
-----------------------
Jeremy did not make the call at 3:26am, in my opinion, otherwise the only difference in the content of the message, would have been the time, 3:26am, instead of 3:36am...
Yet Jeremy's call was noted on the 3:26 call.
------------------------------------------------
You do not know when those comments were added...
There is no way that anybody can tell when those comments were added by PC West...
Lets get the facts right, so there can not be any dispute, any reference to the son, was made after PC west recorded comments from Ralph Bamber where he was speaking about his daughter, and the fact that she had got one of his guns...
Additionally...
There is information contained on that message log, about the times police cars and their occupants were dispatched to the scene, and the time of their arrival at the scene, but that doesn't mean that those details were recorded at the same time that Ralph Bamber called the cops at 3:26am...
Once Jeremy called the police at 3:36am, why shouldn't PC West make a note on the original log that the son had also contacted the police to report an incident at whf?
Was this why PC West made that second record timed at 3:36am?
Did PC West record what Jeremy told him at 3:36am, so that he also had a record of what Ralph had told him at 3:26am?
I think so...
-
There has been no explanation forthcoming from PC West to account for the differences in the body of the messages, given at 3:36am, and 3:26am, respectively, to satisfy anyones curiosity that both calls could have been made by one, and the same person. If the same person made both calls, or if both records related to the same call, and there was only a dispute about the timing of th call, the content of the message would have been exactly the same except for the time...
Definitely two different calls, made by two different people - Ralph and Jeremy...
How can the contents of the message, and the times the call was allegedly made, both be different, if the same person made the two calls, or the call was a reference to the only call made?
No, absolute nonsense. You won't convince me on this one so there isn't much point in trying.
There are logs for one call to the police and nothing more.
---------------------------
But you are completely wrong, there are two records, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am - the contents of both are completely different...
If it was a reference to the same call, the only difference would be the time...
Why would PC West make two completely different and contrasting reports, about the same alleged call?
-
There has been no explanation forthcoming from PC West to account for the differences in the body of the messages, given at 3:36am, and 3:26am, respectively, to satisfy anyones curiosity that both calls could have been made by one, and the same person. If the same person made both calls, or if both records related to the same call, and there was only a dispute about the timing of th call, the content of the message would have been exactly the same except for the time...
Definitely two different calls, made by two different people - Ralph and Jeremy...
How can the contents of the message, and the times the call was allegedly made, both be different, if the same person made the two calls, or the call was a reference to the only call made?
No, absolute nonsense. You won't convince me on this one so there isn't much point in trying.
There are logs for one call to the police and nothing more.
---------------------------
But you are completely wrong, there are two records, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am - the contents of both are completely different...
If it was a reference to the same call, the only difference would be the time...
Why would PC West make two completely different and contrasting reports, about the same alleged call?
The sender box on the log is very clear. one sender was jeremy on the log timed at 3:36, the sender on the log timed at 3:26 is pc1990, The call from Jeremy is mentioned at 3:26.
-
Mike
If Jeremy made a call at 3.36am.
You posted a video which details a car journey of 7 mins and 17 seconds in terms of driving from Goldhanger to White House Farm. This drive is within the speed limit and no faster. The 7 mins 17 seconds do not include any timings for collecting car keys, leaving a property, locking the house up, unlocking a car and starting the engine. (Neither does it inlcude any time Jeremy may have had to use in getting dressed to meet the Police as they had requested he meet them there. Up and until this time Jeremy, presumably, would not have known he would be required at the Farm to meet the Police as he was merely reporting a telephone call from his father - Remember Jeremy claims he was awoken by a call from his father)
Jeremy has detailed he was kept on hold for 11 minutes whilst Essex Police were dealing with his report of receiving a telephone call from his father.
You have posted on this forum Jeremy arrived at White House Farm at 3.52 am. The Police detailed Jeremy arrived just after the Police at White House Farm. It is logged the Police arrived at 3.48 am
By simple addition
3.36 am + 11 minutes = 3.47 am
3.47 am + 7 mins 17seconds = 3.54 am 17 seconds .......... at the very earliest.
3.54 am and 17 seconds is not 3.52 am which is your time for Jeremy's arrival at White House Farm
Please explain why the above is incorrect.
-
There has been no explanation forthcoming from PC West to account for the differences in the body of the messages, given at 3:36am, and 3:26am, respectively, to satisfy anyones curiosity that both calls could have been made by one, and the same person. If the same person made both calls, or if both records related to the same call, and there was only a dispute about the timing of th call, the content of the message would have been exactly the same except for the time...
Definitely two different calls, made by two different people - Ralph and Jeremy...
How can the contents of the message, and the times the call was allegedly made, both be different, if the same person made the two calls, or the call was a reference to the only call made?
No, absolute nonsense. You won't convince me on this one so there isn't much point in trying.
There are logs for one call to the police and nothing more.
---------------------------
But you are completely wrong, there are two records, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am - the contents of both are completely different...
If it was a reference to the same call, the only difference would be the time...
Why would PC West make two completely different and contrasting reports, about the same alleged call?
The sender box on the log is very clear. one sender was jeremy on the log timed at 3:36, the sender on the log timed at 3:26 is pc1990, The call from Jeremy is mentioned at 3:26.
-----------------------
Details of sender are irrelevant - its the contents in the message that is important, and the different times that both calls were made...
How could such a dramatic difference be recorded in both records apparently made 10 minutes apart, if the call came from the same person? You could not make such blatant errors by recording the contents of the same alleged call, twice in such a short period of time, ten minutes apart...
In my opinion...
-
How do you explain that JB's call is mentioned on the 3:26 log whrn it isnt going to take place for another ten minites.
The message sender is unimportant?
-
Mike
If Jeremy made a call at 3.36am.
You posted a video which details a car journey of 7 mins and 17 seconds in terms of driving from Goldhanger to White House Farm. This drive is within the speed limit and no faster. The 7 mins 17 seconds do not include any timings for collecting car keys, leaving a property, locking the house up, unlocking a car and starting the engine. (Neither does it inlcude any time Jeremy may have had to use in getting dressed to meet the Police as they had requested he meet them there. Up and until this time Jeremy, presumably, would not have known he would be required at the Farm to meet the Police as he was merely reporting a telephone call from his father - Remember Jeremy claims he was awoken by a call from his father)
Jeremy has detailed he was kept on hold for 11 minutes whilst Essex Police were dealing with his report of receiving a telephone call from his father.
You have posted on this forum Jeremy arrived at White House Farm at 3.52 am. The Police detailed Jeremy arrived just after the Police at White House Farm. It is logged the Police arrived at 3.48 am
By simple addition
3.36 am + 11 minutes = 3.47 am
3.47 am + 7 mins 17seconds = 3.54 am 17 seconds .......... at the very earliest.
3.54 am and 17 seconds is not 3.52 am which is your time for Jeremy's arrival at White House Farm
Please explain why the above is incorrect.
Hartley......... What do you think re the above?
-
Mike
If Jeremy made a call at 3.36am.
You posted a video which details a car journey of 7 mins and 17 seconds in terms of driving from Goldhanger to White House Farm. This drive is within the speed limit and no faster. The 7 mins 17 seconds do not include any timings for collecting car keys, leaving a property, locking the house up, unlocking a car and starting the engine. (Neither does it inlcude any time Jeremy may have had to use in getting dressed to meet the Police as they had requested he meet them there. Up and until this time Jeremy, presumably, would not have known he would be required at the Farm to meet the Police as he was merely reporting a telephone call from his father - Remember Jeremy claims he was awoken by a call from his father)
Jeremy has detailed he was kept on hold for 11 minutes whilst Essex Police were dealing with his report of receiving a telephone call from his father.
You have posted on this forum Jeremy arrived at White House Farm at 3.52 am. The Police detailed Jeremy arrived just after the Police at White House Farm. It is logged the Police arrived at 3.48 am
By simple addition
3.36 am + 11 minutes = 3.47 am
3.47 am + 7 mins 17seconds = 3.54 am 17 seconds .......... at the very earliest.
3.54 am and 17 seconds is not 3.52 am which is your time for Jeremy's arrival at White House Farm
Please explain why the above is incorrect.
---------------------------------------------
Because your calculations do not take into account the fact that in real time, nobody was keeping a check on the time...
There is absolutely no records at all that PC west kept Jeremy talking on the telephone for 11 minutes, or any proven time that Jeremy concluded his call to the police, or when exactly he left his cottage, or when he arrived at the scene...
All the times referred to are estimated, not precise times...
It is accepted by the police at the scene, that Jeremy arrived there at about 3:52am, but exactly who was keeping time, is anybodies guess?
If police at the scene had watches, and Jeremy was wearing a watch, how can anybody be absolutely sure whether or not that all their watches were accurately synchronized so that any time referred to, (by anybody and everybody) was an absolute time?
You also have the problem of PC West claiming the clock in the control, room was ten minutes fast...
If the time recorded on one of the phone logs, which records the time of dispatch and arrival at the scene, by various officers, was the time recorded 10 minutes fast, or slow, or whatever?
If it took Jeremy, about seven minutes to drive from his cottage to the farm, he could easily have got there by 3:52am, particularly if he drove there at a speed faster than the speed limit. When I drove along that route, it took me over 7 minutes, but I was adhering to the speed limit, and if Jeremy drove that route quicker on the night question, there is no reason at all why he could not have got there in five minutes, or less...
Another thing worth taking into account, when trying to fathom out periods of time which elapsed between one alleged event and another, is that time between two specific points can be interpreted differently...
An example of this, is where someone might say there are ten minutes difference between 3:45 and 3:55am, whereas, someone else might point out that there could be as many as 12 minutes between the two specified time:-
3:45 ---------------------------------------------------- (another 59 seconds here)
3:46 - 1 minute
3:47 - 2 minutes
3:48 - 3 minutes
3:49 - 4 minutes
3:50 - 5 minutes
3:51 - 6 minutes
3:52 - 7 minutes
3:53 - 8 minutes
3:54 - 9 minutes
3:55 - 10 minutes
3:56 ----------------------------------------------------- (another 59 seconds here)
For all we know, or anybody knows, Jeremy's reference to the police keeping him held on the line for 11 minutes. could simply have been a figure of speech...
-
The 3.26 am telephone log details the Police arrived at White House Farm at 3.48 am.
Relatively speaking the control room clock possibly being 10 minutes fast or slow is irrelevant because it is the time difference of 22 minutes which becomes the fact.
There is a lot to fit in within this 22 minute timeframe.
Re - "If it took Jeremy, about seven minutes to drive from his cottage to the farm, he could easily have got there by 3:52am, particularly if he drove there at a speed faster than the speed limit. When I drove along that route, it took me over 7 minutes, but I was adhering to the speed limit, and if Jeremy drove that route quicker on the night question, there is no reason at all why he could not have got there in five minutes, or less..."
I think I recall it documented in "Blood Relations" that the Police overtook Jeremy on his way to the Farm and he was not driving fast or with any excessive speed given the speed limit. I also beleive the Police overtook Jeremy just before they turned into Pages Lane........ I could be wrong
-
The 3.26 am telephone log details the Police arrived at White House Farm at 3.48 am.
Relatively speaking the control room clock possibly being 10 minutes fast or slow is irrelevant because it is the time difference of 22 minutes which becomes the fact.
There is a lot to fit in within this 22 minute timeframe.
Re - "If it took Jeremy, about seven minutes to drive from his cottage to the farm, he could easily have got there by 3:52am, particularly if he drove there at a speed faster than the speed limit. When I drove along that route, it took me over 7 minutes, but I was adhering to the speed limit, and if Jeremy drove that route quicker on the night question, there is no reason at all why he could not have got there in five minutes, or less..."
I think I recall it documented in "Blood Relations" that the Police overtook Jeremy on his way to the Farm and he was not driving fast or with any excessive speed given the speed limit. I also beleive the Police overtook Jeremy just before they turned into Pages Lane........ I could be wrong
---------------------------------------
Yes, it is very easy for someone to deceive another, by not making mention of the fact that when Jeremy left his cottage, he had been instructed by the police to go to the farm, where he would be met by police officers who had already been dispatched to the scene. It is important to note that the police did not tell Jeremy that police were being dispatched to the scene, but rather they told him that police had already been dispatched there. So, off Jeremy sets to the farmhouse with the advice of the police still ringing in his ears - if you get there before the police you must not enter the farmhouse, or approach it until the police arrive there...
Anyway, off Jeremy goes, and he is driving along, along the winding Tollsbury Road, when he sees the blue flashing lights of a police car, hurtling along in the road behind him, so he does the natural thing which anyone would do, he slows down to let the police car over take him - this is the explanation for why the patrol car overtook Jeremy, en route to the scene...
Nothing remotely sinister at all, in any of his actions, that night...
-
So the 7 minutes 17 seconds is a reasonable time for the journey between Goldhanger and White House Farm.
For instance this being a time for a journey which a jury would beleive most likely.
-
So the 7 minutes 17 seconds is a reasonable time for the journey between Goldhanger and White House Farm.
For instance this being a time for a journey which a jury would beleive most likely.
-------------------------------
Yes, and if Jeremy got to the farm at about 3:52am, he could easily have made the call to PC West at 3:36am, and left his cottage at about 3:45am, and been on the phone to the police for about 11 minutes, give or take a couple of minutes either way...
It wouldn't take long for anyone to get dressed, grab car keys and get out into the car and set off to go to the scene, as instructed by the police...
Less than a minute to do all that, I should think...
-
This is my first post so please bear with me. I have followed this case from day 1 and do correspond with Jeremy.
What I do not understand. The Log from the Police Station shows that Nevill rang and reported that his daughter (not son) had gone beserk with a gun.
Surely that alone is evidence for a retrial??
No he didn't there is no evidence of this. The log shows a call from Jeremy to the police and then an internal call between police officers and nothing else.
-----------------------------------
I disagree...
There are clearly two different messages being recorded, or referred to here, one in which a reference is made to "daughter" and the other "sister", further discrepancies between "has got one of my guns" and "the gun," and additional differences, involving reference to the age of the daughter, or sister...
If this was just a matter of the time being recorded wrongly, as alleged, the contents would be exactly the same, only the times would be recorded differently...
In my opinion...
I agree to disagree. ;)
There was no call from Nevill to the police. In my opinion.
-----------------------
Jeremy did not make the call at 3:26am, in my opinion, otherwise the only difference in the content of the message, would have been the time, 3:26am, instead of 3:36am...
Yet Jeremy's call was noted on the 3:26 call.
------------------------------------------------
You do not know when those comments were added...
There is no way that anybody can tell when those comments were added by PC West...
Lets get the facts right, so there can not be any dispute, any reference to the son, was made after PC west recorded comments from Ralph Bamber where he was speaking about his daughter, and the fact that she had got one of his guns...
Additionally...
There is information contained on that message log, about the times police cars and their occupants were dispatched to the scene, and the time of their arrival at the scene, but that doesn't mean that those details were recorded at the same time that Ralph Bamber called the cops at 3:26am...
Once Jeremy called the police at 3:36am, why shouldn't PC West make a note on the original log that the son had also contacted the police to report an incident at whf?
Was this why PC West made that second record timed at 3:36am?
Did PC West record what Jeremy told him at 3:36am, so that he also had a record of what Ralph had told him at 3:26am?
I think so...
It wasn't PC West who made a note that the son had contacted the police, it was Malcolm Bonnet who wrote that. He said that the message had been passed on by Jeremy.
-
There has been no explanation forthcoming from PC West to account for the differences in the body of the messages, given at 3:36am, and 3:26am, respectively, to satisfy anyones curiosity that both calls could have been made by one, and the same person. If the same person made both calls, or if both records related to the same call, and there was only a dispute about the timing of th call, the content of the message would have been exactly the same except for the time...
Definitely two different calls, made by two different people - Ralph and Jeremy...
How can the contents of the message, and the times the call was allegedly made, both be different, if the same person made the two calls, or the call was a reference to the only call made?
No, absolute nonsense. You won't convince me on this one so there isn't much point in trying.
There are logs for one call to the police and nothing more.
---------------------------
But you are completely wrong, there are two records, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am - the contents of both are completely different...
If it was a reference to the same call, the only difference would be the time...
Why would PC West make two completely different and contrasting reports, about the same alleged call?
PC West didn't make two reports, he made one. Malcolm Bonnet wrote the other. PC West rang Malcolm Bonnet to pass on the message from Jeremy.
I think there's some real confusion here about who wrote which log and why.
-
This is my first post so please bear with me. I have followed this case from day 1 and do correspond with Jeremy.
What I do not understand. The Log from the Police Station shows that Nevill rang and reported that his daughter (not son) had gone beserk with a gun.
Surely that alone is evidence for a retrial??
No he didn't there is no evidence of this. The log shows a call from Jeremy to the police and then an internal call between police officers and nothing else.
-----------------------------------
I disagree...
There are clearly two different messages being recorded, or referred to here, one in which a reference is made to "daughter" and the other "sister", further discrepancies between "has got one of my guns" and "the gun," and additional differences, involving reference to the age of the daughter, or sister...
If this was just a matter of the time being recorded wrongly, as alleged, the contents would be exactly the same, only the times would be recorded differently...
In my opinion...
I agree to disagree. ;)
There was no call from Nevill to the police. In my opinion.
-----------------------
Jeremy did not make the call at 3:26am, in my opinion, otherwise the only difference in the content of the message, would have been the time, 3:26am, instead of 3:36am...
Yet Jeremy's call was noted on the 3:26 call.
------------------------------------------------
You do not know when those comments were added...
There is no way that anybody can tell when those comments were added by PC West...
Lets get the facts right, so there can not be any dispute, any reference to the son, was made after PC west recorded comments from Ralph Bamber where he was speaking about his daughter, and the fact that she had got one of his guns...
Additionally...
There is information contained on that message log, about the times police cars and their occupants were dispatched to the scene, and the time of their arrival at the scene, but that doesn't mean that those details were recorded at the same time that Ralph Bamber called the cops at 3:26am...
Once Jeremy called the police at 3:36am, why shouldn't PC West make a note on the original log that the son had also contacted the police to report an incident at whf?
Was this why PC West made that second record timed at 3:36am?
Did PC West record what Jeremy told him at 3:36am, so that he also had a record of what Ralph had told him at 3:26am?
I think so...
It wasn't PC West who made a note that the son had contacted the police, it was Malcolm Bonnet who wrote that. He said that the message had been passed on by Jeremy.
--------------------------------------------
Whatever...
it would be logical that once Jeremy made his call to the police at 3:36am, that a record might be added to the earlier call that the police had received from the father, at 3:26am, who informed the police that his "Daughter" had got "one of his guns" and that she was going berserk...
Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, and the guns at whf belonged and were owned by Ralph Bamber, not Jeremy...
-
There has been no explanation forthcoming from PC West to account for the differences in the body of the messages, given at 3:36am, and 3:26am, respectively, to satisfy anyones curiosity that both calls could have been made by one, and the same person. If the same person made both calls, or if both records related to the same call, and there was only a dispute about the timing of th call, the content of the message would have been exactly the same except for the time...
Definitely two different calls, made by two different people - Ralph and Jeremy...
How can the contents of the message, and the times the call was allegedly made, both be different, if the same person made the two calls, or the call was a reference to the only call made?
No, absolute nonsense. You won't convince me on this one so there isn't much point in trying.
There are logs for one call to the police and nothing more.
---------------------------
But you are completely wrong, there are two records, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am - the contents of both are completely different...
If it was a reference to the same call, the only difference would be the time...
Why would PC West make two completely different and contrasting reports, about the same alleged call?
PC West didn't make two reports, he made one. Malcolm Bonnet wrote the other. PC West rang Malcolm Bonnet to pass on the message from Jeremy.
I think there's some real confusion here about who wrote which log and why.
-----------------------------
Hence why the bit which was added onto the 3:26am call from Ralph to the police, makes mention of a call from the son...
-
Look, PC West and Malcolm Bonnet can't have both forgotten an extra phone call. Are you suggesting they lied and pretended there was only one call?
-
So the 7 minutes 17 seconds is a reasonable time for the journey between Goldhanger and White House Farm.
For instance this being a time for a journey which a jury would beleive most likely.
-------------------------------
Yes, and if Jeremy got to the farm at about 3:52am, he could easily have made the call to PC West at 3:36am, and left his cottage at about 3:45am, and been on the phone to the police for about 11 minutes, give or take a couple of minutes either way...
It wouldn't take long for anyone to get dressed, grab car keys and get out into the car and set off to go to the scene, as instructed by the police...
Less than a minute to do all that, I should think...
The less than a minute would all depend if Jeremy was in a hurry as would the time for a car journey from Goldhanger to White House Farm.
For me it is more likely the Telephone call from Jeremy to the Police was timed at 3.26am. (See telephone log notes of message passed from PC West to Malcolme Bonnet referring to a telephone call from the son of Neville Bamber.)
This would more comfortably fit in the 'extras' like getting dressed etc. including an 11 minute delay whilst being on hold. The 11 minutes overlaps the 3.36 am log. This time may have been noted down at the end of the call from Jeremy to PC West whilst Malcom Bonnet noted the time when PC West first made contact with Malcolm Bonnet to detail Jeremy's call whilst he was on hold)
-
There has been no explanation forthcoming from PC West to account for the differences in the body of the messages, given at 3:36am, and 3:26am, respectively, to satisfy anyones curiosity that both calls could have been made by one, and the same person. If the same person made both calls, or if both records related to the same call, and there was only a dispute about the timing of th call, the content of the message would have been exactly the same except for the time...
Definitely two different calls, made by two different people - Ralph and Jeremy...
How can the contents of the message, and the times the call was allegedly made, both be different, if the same person made the two calls, or the call was a reference to the only call made?
No, absolute nonsense. You won't convince me on this one so there isn't much point in trying.
There are logs for one call to the police and nothing more.
---------------------------
But you are completely wrong, there are two records, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am - the contents of both are completely different...
If it was a reference to the same call, the only difference would be the time...
Why would PC West make two completely different and contrasting reports, about the same alleged call?
PC West didn't make two reports, he made one. Malcolm Bonnet wrote the other. PC West rang Malcolm Bonnet to pass on the message from Jeremy.
I think there's some real confusion here about who wrote which log and why.
-----------------------------
Hence why the bit which was added onto the 3:26am call from Ralph to the police, makes mention of a call from the son...
I guess it's a matter of interpretation. I don't see why Malcolm Bonnet would add to one message that another message was received later. That makes no sense to me.
Also, there would be two logs from PC West if there were two phone calls.
Neither of those two said there was more than one call concerning the same incident.
-
Look, PC West and Malcolm Bonnet can't have both forgotten an extra phone call. Are you suggesting they lied and pretended there was only one call?
---------------------------------------------
Lets get the facts right, neither Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West have been asked if they received a call from Ralph Bamber, and certainly neither have testified to that effect at any court proceedings, so it remains possible that Ralph did make that call to the police at 3:26am, to which his name and his details relate...
Are you saying you know of a witness statement where either of these two prosecution witnesses state categorically that they did not receive a call from Ralph Bamber at all, that morning?
Do you know something that I don't?
-
There has been no explanation forthcoming from PC West to account for the differences in the body of the messages, given at 3:36am, and 3:26am, respectively, to satisfy anyones curiosity that both calls could have been made by one, and the same person. If the same person made both calls, or if both records related to the same call, and there was only a dispute about the timing of th call, the content of the message would have been exactly the same except for the time...
Definitely two different calls, made by two different people - Ralph and Jeremy...
How can the contents of the message, and the times the call was allegedly made, both be different, if the same person made the two calls, or the call was a reference to the only call made?
No, absolute nonsense. You won't convince me on this one so there isn't much point in trying.
There are logs for one call to the police and nothing more.
---------------------------
But you are completely wrong, there are two records, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am - the contents of both are completely different...
If it was a reference to the same call, the only difference would be the time...
Why would PC West make two completely different and contrasting reports, about the same alleged call?
PC West didn't make two reports, he made one. Malcolm Bonnet wrote the other. PC West rang Malcolm Bonnet to pass on the message from Jeremy.
I think there's some real confusion here about who wrote which log and why.
-----------------------------
Hence why the bit which was added onto the 3:26am call from Ralph to the police, makes mention of a call from the son...
I guess it's a matter of interpretation. I don't see why Malcolm Bonnet would add to one message that another message was received later. That makes no sense to me.
Also, there would be two logs from PC West if there were two phone calls.
Neither of those two said there was more than one call concerning the same incident.
--------------------------------------
I choose to believe that as more information comes to light that it would be perfectly normal to ad additional detail onto or into an already existing log, or police record, information that might be pertinent to an incident that was already ongoing...
Comments about call from son, could easily have been added to the details which Ralph had already supplied to the police...
in my opinion...
-
Look, PC West and Malcolm Bonnet can't have both forgotten an extra phone call. Are you suggesting they lied and pretended there was only one call?
---------------------------------------------
Lets get the facts right, neither Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West have been asked if they received a call from Ralph Bamber, and certainly neither have testified to that effect at any court proceedings, so it remains possible that Ralph did make that call to the police at 3:26am, to which his name and his details relate...
Are you saying you know of a witness statement where either of these two prosecution witnesses state categorically that they did not receive a call from Ralph Bamber at all, that morning?
Do you know something that I don't?
I think they would have mentioned it!
-
I choose to believe that as more information comes to light that it would be perfectly normal to ad additional detail onto or into an already existing log, or police record, information that might be pertinent to an incident that was already ongoing...
Comments about call from son, could easily have been added to the details which Ralph had already supplied to the police...
in my opinion...
Then Malcolm Bonnet would have said in his statement that he added that bit on as a result of a further call from Jeremy or PC West - in my opinion.
-
Look, both of those logs were available at the time of the trial. If there was anything dodgy the defence would or should have picked up on it. The issue of the difference in times was discussed at the trial!
-
In all events the 3.26 am log was available at the original trial. I recall it has a Chelmsford Court label on it. So CCRC probably do not regard any of this of new evidence as grounds for an appeal.
However, as I have stated in other threads, I beleive this is a subject matter which would be challenged vigorously by both sides if there was a retrial. In such an event, from what I can see, the argument for one telphone call being received by the Police from Jeremy at 3.26 am and no telephone call being received from Neville Bamber to the Police is curently the stronger argument. Not forgetting in the original trial the Judge in summing up the case to the jury gave the defence a benefit of the doubt in the timing of Jeremy's call to the Police at 3.26 am. Given such a statement by a Judge in summing up Jeremy would appear to have been worse off at the original trial if his call was at 3.36 am. All things to bear in mind.
-
Look, PC West and Malcolm Bonnet can't have both forgotten an extra phone call. Are you suggesting they lied and pretended there was only one call?
---------------------------------------------
Lets get the facts right, neither Malcolm Bonnet, nor PC West have been asked if they received a call from Ralph Bamber, and certainly neither have testified to that effect at any court proceedings, so it remains possible that Ralph did make that call to the police at 3:26am, to which his name and his details relate...
Are you saying you know of a witness statement where either of these two prosecution witnesses state categorically that they did not receive a call from Ralph Bamber at all, that morning?
Do you know something that I don't?
I think they would have mentioned it!
----------------------------------------
I think that if the record which provides the detail of Ralph's call (3:26am) had been disclosed at the trial, it would have been mentioned, by virtue of the fact that there is conflicting information recorded on that same log - for example, reference to Ralph Bamber informing the police that his daughter has got one of his guns, and that she was going berserk, including giving his daughters age, and the fact that information had also been passed by the son, to the police, about a call he had received from his father...
The son bit on that log, does not sit very well with the details of the daughter getting hold of one of Ralph Bambers guns, and going berserk, in my opinion, since in the record which records what Jeremy told the police, it clearly states that Jeremy told the police that he was contacted by his father who told him your sister has got the gun, she;s gone crazy, come quickly?
The contents of both logs, do not sit comfortably together in my opinion, as referring to the same call - it relates to two different calls, at least that what I choose to believe...
...
-
Look, both of those logs were available at the time of the trial. If there was anything dodgy the defence would or should have picked up on it. The issue of the difference in times was discussed at the trial!
----------------------------
The original of both logs was not available at the time of the original trial, and you should not be suggesting that they were - this was why the contents of the 3:26am log were not disclosed or introduced at any stage during the trial, because it was a photocopy that was printed on the reverse of another log from the scene, the original was missing and under the circumstances, a copy would not have been allowed or permitted in as evidence, not at any cost...
-
In all events the 3.26 am log was available at the original trial. I recall it has a Chelmsford Court label on it. So CCRC probably do not regard any of this of new evidence as grounds for an appeal.
However, as I have stated in other threads, I beleive this is a subject matter which would be challenged vigorously by both sides if there was a retrial. In such an event, from what I can see, the argument for one telphone call being received by the Police from Jeremy at 3.26 am and no telephone call being received from Neville Bamber to the Police is curently the stronger argument. Not forgetting in the original trial the Judge in summing up the case to the jury gave the defence a benefit of the doubt in the timing of Jeremy's call to the Police at 3.26 am. Given such a statement by a Judge in summing up Jeremy would appear to have been worse off at the original trial if his call was at 3.36 am. All things to bear in mind.
----------------------------
Not true, 3:26am log was only a photocopy on the reverse of another log from the scene...
-
Phone Call timed at 3:26am
The original of this was not disclosed during the trial of Jeremy Bamber, Chelmsford Crown court, October 1986. A photocopy was printed on the reverse of another log which contained details of events at the scene (which was disclosed)...
What appears to have happened is that somebody has copied the details of the 3:26am call detailing Ralph Bambers call to the police at that time, onto the reverse of the other log commencing at 4:02am, and this piece of paper, has been official stamped, with the crown court seal, to give a false impression that it was disclosed at the trial, but it was not...
You cannot introduce a photocopy of a record into a trial without first of all there being legal argument for and against allowing a copy to be accepted, and since this did not take place, there is no way on gods earth that the judge would have allowed a photocopy of the 3:26am, log to become an exhibit...
Impossible...
-
Look, both of those logs were available at the time of the trial. If there was anything dodgy the defence would or should have picked up on it. The issue of the difference in times was discussed at the trial!
----------------------------
The original of both logs was not available at the time of the original trial, and you should not be suggesting that they were - this was why the contents of the 3:26am log were not disclosed or introduced at any stage during the trial, because it was a photocopy that was printed on the reverse of another log from the scene, the original was missing and under the circumstances, a copy would not have been allowed or permitted in as evidence, not at any cost...
Well then why was the time of PC West's log brought up in court? Why was it an issue? There must have been a reason.
Malcolm Bonnet's wrote the log of the events from the scene in my opinion - it wasn't written at the scene.
-
Let's sort out that log of events. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet who was receiving messages via radio. It was not written at the scene in my opinion.
-
Look, both of those logs were available at the time of the trial. If there was anything dodgy the defence would or should have picked up on it. The issue of the difference in times was discussed at the trial!
----------------------------
The original of both logs was not available at the time of the original trial, and you should not be suggesting that they were - this was why the contents of the 3:26am log were not disclosed or introduced at any stage during the trial, because it was a photocopy that was printed on the reverse of another log from the scene, the original was missing and under the circumstances, a copy would not have been allowed or permitted in as evidence, not at any cost...
Well then why was the time of PC West's log brought up in court? Why was it an issue? There must have been a reason.
Malcolm Bonnet's wrote the log of the events from the scene in my opinion - it wasn't written at the scene.
------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the timing of PC West's log was brought up in court, that is correct, but it was not brought up because the second log (3:26am from Ralph Bamber) and its contents had been disclosed, the time was brought up and mentioned for an entirely different reason or matter...
-
Look, both of those logs were available at the time of the trial. If there was anything dodgy the defence would or should have picked up on it. The issue of the difference in times was discussed at the trial!
----------------------------
The original of both logs was not available at the time of the original trial, and you should not be suggesting that they were - this was why the contents of the 3:26am log were not disclosed or introduced at any stage during the trial, because it was a photocopy that was printed on the reverse of another log from the scene, the original was missing and under the circumstances, a copy would not have been allowed or permitted in as evidence, not at any cost...
Well then why was the time of PC West's log brought up in court? Why was it an issue? There must have been a reason.
Malcolm Bonnet's wrote the log of the events from the scene in my opinion - it wasn't written at the scene.
------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the timing of PC' log was brought up in court, that is correct, but it was not brought up because the second log (3:26am from Ralph Bamber) and its contents had been disclosed, the time was brought up and mentioned for an entirely different reason or matter...
What reason?
This is from the Appeal document of 2002. The judges were just recapping what happened at the trial. It was known about in 2002, and I think it was known about at the trial as well.
PC West recorded the time of the appellant's call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m. and it seems clear that the appellant's call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.
-
Let's sort out that log of events. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet who was receiving messages via radio. It was not written at the scene in my opinion.
Both logs are indicate as coming from an 'exchange line'....... no 999 calls. So this means if two calls by two people both parties will have had to ring directly. Jeremy had to look up the number for Chelmsford Police Station. Would Neville Bamber have looked up the number for a Police Station whilst Sheila was going beserk with a gun???????
Also the judge, in summing up the case, gave the defence the benefit of the doubt re Jeremy's call to the Police being at 3.26 am as opposed to 3.36 am.
-
Let's sort out that log of events. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet who was receiving messages via radio. It was not written at the scene in my opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------
The log to which you refer to and mention, was written on one side of a piece of A foolscap paper, in original handwriting, and this was disclosed at trial and would have in the normal course of events have been stamped with the seal of approval by the crown court - but on the reverse of this, was a photocopy of Ralph Bambers 3:26am, telephone call to the police, which would not have been admitted into evidence because the original was missing or had not been brought to the court or disclosed...
-
Let's sort out that log of events. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet who was receiving messages via radio. It was not written at the scene in my opinion.
Both logs are indicate as coming from an 'exchange line'....... no 999 calls. So this means if two calls by two people both parties will have had to ring directly. Jeremy had to look up the number for Chelmsford Police Station. Would Neville Bamber have looked up the number for a Police Station whilst Sheila was going beserk with a gun???????
Also the judge, in summing up the case, gave the defence the benefit of the doubt re Jeremy's call to the Police being at 3.26 am as opposed to 3.36 am.
Sorry, I'm talking about the log of events. This one ....
http://www.jeremybamber.com/jeremybamber1.htm
I think Mike is saying it was written at the scene, and I'm saying it was not. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet.
-
Let's sort out that log of events. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet who was receiving messages via radio. It was not written at the scene in my opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------
The log to which you refer to and mention, was written on one side of a piece of A foolscap paper, in original handwriting, and this was disclosed at trial and would have in the normal course of events have been stamped with the seal of approval by the crown court - but on the reverse of this, was a photocopy of Ralph Bambers 3:26am, telephone call to the police, which would not have been admitted into evidence because the original was missing or had not been brought to the court or disclosed...
Where are you getting your information from? Is it from here?
http://www.jeremybamber.com/?q=wireless-message-log_Jeremy_is_.innocent
If so, the author is not saying the same thing as you.
-
The appeal judges knew about Malcolm Bonnet's log in 2002. It was not brought up as a ground for appeal, it was OLD NEWS.
-
Look, both of those logs were available at the time of the trial. If there was anything dodgy the defence would or should have picked up on it. The issue of the difference in times was discussed at the trial!
----------------------------
The original of both logs was not available at the time of the original trial, and you should not be suggesting that they were - this was why the contents of the 3:26am log were not disclosed or introduced at any stage during the trial, because it was a photocopy that was printed on the reverse of another log from the scene, the original was missing and under the circumstances, a copy would not have been allowed or permitted in as evidence, not at any cost...
Well then why was the time of PC West's log brought up in court? Why was it an issue? There must have been a reason.
Malcolm Bonnet's wrote the log of the events from the scene in my opinion - it wasn't written at the scene.
------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the timing of PC' log was brought up in court, that is correct, but it was not brought up because the second log (3:26am from Ralph Bamber) and its contents had been disclosed, the time was brought up and mentioned for an entirely different reason or matter...
What reason?
This is from the Appeal document of 2002. The judges were just recapping what happened at the trial. It was known about in 2002, and I think it was known about at the trial as well.
PC West recorded the time of the appellant's call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m. and it seems clear that the appellant's call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.
--------------------------------------------
By time of 2002 appeal, CCRC had gathered a mountain of evidence from Essex police, including mention of the details recorded in the photocopy 3:26am, log. That copy log and its contents were never part of Jeremy's grounds of appeal in 2002. So, where the court of appeal got that information from, is in gods hands...
Notice that in the appeal judgement it does not state that PC Wests contact with Malcolm Bonnet at 3:26am, was with regards to Jeremy's call, alone. He could for example, have been in touch with Malcolm Bonnet at that time, as a result of the call from Ralph, and the details about Jeremy's call, which were added to, later, there is no clarification about these matters in the appeal judgement in my opinion......
-
Let's sort out that log of events. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet who was receiving messages via radio. It was not written at the scene in my opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------
The log to which you refer to and mention, was written on one side of a piece of A foolscap paper, in original handwriting, and this was disclosed at trial and would have in the normal course of events have been stamped with the seal of approval by the crown court - but on the reverse of this, was a photocopy of Ralph Bambers 3:26am, telephone call to the police, which would not have been admitted into evidence because the original was missing or had not been brought to the court or disclosed...
Where are you getting your information from? Is it from here?
http://www.jeremybamber.com/?q=wireless-message-log_Jeremy_is_.innocent
If so, the author is not saying the same thing as you.
---------------------------------------------------------
Why are you trying to attribute someone else's comments to me?
-
Let's sort out that log of events. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet who was receiving messages via radio. It was not written at the scene in my opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------
The log to which you refer to and mention, was written on one side of a piece of A foolscap paper, in original handwriting, and this was disclosed at trial and would have in the normal course of events have been stamped with the seal of approval by the crown court - but on the reverse of this, was a photocopy of Ralph Bambers 3:26am, telephone call to the police, which would not have been admitted into evidence because the original was missing or had not been brought to the court or disclosed...
Where are you getting your information from? Is it from here?
http://www.jeremybamber.com/?q=wireless-message-log_Jeremy_is_.innocent
If so, the author is not saying the same thing as you.
---------------------------------------------------------
Why are you trying to attribute someone else's comments to me?
I'm not - you already told me you didn't write that article. That article says something different to what you're saying - the opposite in fact. It's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was in court but that the first page of the event log was not.
-
Let's sort out that log of events. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet who was receiving messages via radio. It was not written at the scene in my opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------
The log to which you refer to and mention, was written on one side of a piece of A foolscap paper, in original handwriting, and this was disclosed at trial and would have in the normal course of events have been stamped with the seal of approval by the crown court - but on the reverse of this, was a photocopy of Ralph Bambers 3:26am, telephone call to the police, which would not have been admitted into evidence because the original was missing or had not been brought to the court or disclosed...
Where are you getting your information from? Is it from here?
http://www.jeremybamber.com/?q=wireless-message-log_Jeremy_is_.innocent
If so, the author is not saying the same thing as you.
---------------------------------------------------------
Why are you trying to attribute someone else's comments to me?
To be fair I don't think he is... he's just trying to understand what part of the log theory is just that, theory and what part is fact.
I still don't believe Neville and Jeremy both phoned the local station. I think the logs are two seperate peoples take on the message they were relayed.
-
Let's sort out that log of events. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet who was receiving messages via radio. It was not written at the scene in my opinion.
Both logs are indicate as coming from an 'exchange line'....... no 999 calls. So this means if two calls by two people both parties will have had to ring directly. Jeremy had to look up the number for Chelmsford Police Station. Would Neville Bamber have looked up the number for a Police Station whilst Sheila was going beserk with a gun???????
Also the judge, in summing up the case, gave the defence the benefit of the doubt re Jeremy's call to the Police being at 3.26 am as opposed to 3.36 am.
-----------------------------------------------------
The trial judge, Mr Justice drake, gave the defense the benefit of doubt over this matter, because it was being argued by the prosecution that the timing of the call made by Jeremy to his then girlfriend Julie Mugford, had been made after Jeremy's call to the police, not beforehand...
Jeremy stated that he called Julie at about 3:30am, which was after the call he got from his dad, but before the timing of his call to the police at 3:36am...
The timing of the 3:26am, call was introduced by the prosecution to suggest that Jeremy had called the police before he called his girl friend, and that he had called the police at 3:26am, or thereabouts, which was minutes, before he called Julie at 3:30am? The prosecution also got Julie Muforgd to introduce the argument when she testified that the timing of Jeremy's call to her that morning had happened at about 3:15am, not 3:30am, by relying upon the suggestion that a clock which was at the premises where she was in digs was 15 minutes fast...
Imagine that, the clock in the control room 10 minutes fast, and the clock in London in the house where Mugford was in digs, also being 10 to 15 minutes fast?
What a coincidence.,..
-
By time of 2002 appeal, CCRC had gathered a mountain of evidence from Essex police, including mention of the details recorded in the photocopy 3:26am, log. That copy log and its contents were never part of Jeremy's grounds of appeal in 2002. So, where the court of appeal got that information from, is in gods hands...
Notice that in the appeal judgement it does not state that PC Wests contact with Malcolm Bonnet at 3:26am, was with regards to Jeremy's call, alone. He could for example, have been in touch with Malcolm Bonnet at that time, as a result of the call from Ralph, and the details about Jeremy's call, which were added to, later, there is no clarification about these matters in the appeal judgement in my opinion......
The implication in the judges' words is clear. They said that the appellant must have phoned at 3.26 or shortly before that - because of Malcolm Bonnet's log. They never mentioned a call from Neville. Don't you think they would have said something if they thought it was a log of a call from Neville?
If the defence had thought that Bonnet's log referred to a call from Neville don't you think they would have brought it up as a ground for appeal in 2002?
-
By time of 2002 appeal, CCRC had gathered a mountain of evidence from Essex police, including mention of the details recorded in the photocopy 3:26am, log. That copy log and its contents were never part of Jeremy's grounds of appeal in 2002. So, where the court of appeal got that information from, is in gods hands...
Notice that in the appeal judgement it does not state that PC Wests contact with Malcolm Bonnet at 3:26am, was with regards to Jeremy's call, alone. He could for example, have been in touch with Malcolm Bonnet at that time, as a result of the call from Ralph, and the details about Jeremy's call, which were added to, later, there is no clarification about these matters in the appeal judgement in my opinion......
The implication in the judges' words is clear. They said that the appellant must have phoned at 3.26 or shortly before that - because of Malcolm Bonnet's log. They never mentioned a call from Neville. Don't you think they would have said something if they thought it was a log of a call from Neville?
If the defence had thought that Bonnet's log referred to a call from Neville don't you think they would have brought it up as a ground for appeal in 2002?
----------------------------------
That is precisely the point...
Thats why it was not disclosed, because if it had been they would have acted upon it accordingly...
-
The appeal judges knew about Malcolm Bonnet's log in 2002. It was not brought up as a ground for appeal, it was OLD NEWS.
-----------------------------------------
Defense did not know about contents of log timed at 3:26am, at time of 2002 appeal, otherwise they would have acted upon it...
-
Let's sort out that log of events. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet who was receiving messages via radio. It was not written at the scene in my opinion.
Both logs are indicate as coming from an 'exchange line'....... no 999 calls. So this means if two calls by two people both parties will have had to ring directly. Jeremy had to look up the number for Chelmsford Police Station. Would Neville Bamber have looked up the number for a Police Station whilst Sheila was going beserk with a gun???????
Also the judge, in summing up the case, gave the defence the benefit of the doubt re Jeremy's call to the Police being at 3.26 am as opposed to 3.36 am.
-----------------------------------------------------
The trial judge, Mr Justice drake, gave the defense the benefit of doubt over this matter, because it was being argued by the prosecution that the timing of the call made by Jeremy to his then girlfriend Julie Mugford, had been made after Jeremy's call to the police, not beforehand...
Jeremy stated that he called Julie at about 3:30am, which was after the call he got from his dad, but before the timing of his call to the police at 3:36am...
The timing of the 3:26am, call was introduced by the prosecution to suggest that Jeremy had called the police before he called his girl friend, and that he had called the police at 3:26am, or thereabouts, which was minutes, before he called Julie at 3:30am? The prosecution also got Julie Muforgd to introduce the argument when she testified that the timing of Jeremy's call to her that morning had happened at about 3:15am, not 3:30am, by relying upon the suggestion that a clock which was at the premises where she was in digs was 15 minutes fast...
Imagine that, the clock in the control room 10 minutes fast, and the clock in London in the house where Mugford was in digs, also being 10 to 15 minutes fast?
What a coincidence.,..
So if it was known at the trial that there was a log of a call at 3.26, why on earth would the defence not want to see that? They must have asked where the information came from. I don't believe they didn't know about Malcolm Bonnet's log at the time.
Why would the prosecution be keen to say that Jeremy called Julie after he called the police? What was the point of that?
-
The appeal judges knew about Malcolm Bonnet's log in 2002. It was not brought up as a ground for appeal, it was OLD NEWS.
-----------------------------------------
Defense did not know about contents of log timed at 3:26am, at time of 2002 appeal, otherwise they would have acted upon it...
Well the judges knew, and you've just said that a 3.26 call was mentioned at the trial, so the defence must have known something.
-
Let's sort out that log of events. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet who was receiving messages via radio. It was not written at the scene in my opinion.
Both logs are indicate as coming from an 'exchange line'....... no 999 calls. So this means if two calls by two people both parties will have had to ring directly. Jeremy had to look up the number for Chelmsford Police Station. Would Neville Bamber have looked up the number for a Police Station whilst Sheila was going beserk with a gun???????
Also the judge, in summing up the case, gave the defence the benefit of the doubt re Jeremy's call to the Police being at 3.26 am as opposed to 3.36 am.
-----------------------------------------------------
The trial judge, Mr Justice drake, gave the defense the benefit of doubt over this matter, because it was being argued by the prosecution that the timing of the call made by Jeremy to his then girlfriend Julie Mugford, had been made after Jeremy's call to the police, not beforehand...
Jeremy stated that he called Julie at about 3:30am, which was after the call he got from his dad, but before the timing of his call to the police at 3:36am...
The timing of the 3:26am, call was introduced by the prosecution to suggest that Jeremy had called the police before he called his girl friend, and that he had called the police at 3:26am, or thereabouts, which was minutes, before he called Julie at 3:30am? The prosecution also got Julie Muforgd to introduce the argument when she testified that the timing of Jeremy's call to her that morning had happened at about 3:15am, not 3:30am, by relying upon the suggestion that a clock which was at the premises where she was in digs was 15 minutes fast...
Imagine that, the clock in the control room 10 minutes fast, and the clock in London in the house where Mugford was in digs, also being 10 to 15 minutes fast?
What a coincidence.,..
So if it was known at the trial that there was a log of a call at 3.26, why on earth would the defence not want to see that? They must have asked where the information came from. I don't believe they didn't know about Malcolm Bonnet's log at the time.
Why would the prosecution be keen to say that Jeremy called Julie after he called the police? What was the point of that?
------------------------------
Your twisting the words to mean something they don't mean - the 3:26am timing came about because of the suggestion that the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, there was no disclosure of the actual log that you keep trying to bring in through the back door...
If the original of that log had been available, it would have been disclosed, and acted upon by the defense who would have wasted no time at all, raising the point about a call from Ralph Bamber...
-
Let's sort out that log of events. I think it was written by Malcolm Bonnet who was receiving messages via radio. It was not written at the scene in my opinion.
Both logs are indicate as coming from an 'exchange line'....... no 999 calls. So this means if two calls by two people both parties will have had to ring directly. Jeremy had to look up the number for Chelmsford Police Station. Would Neville Bamber have looked up the number for a Police Station whilst Sheila was going beserk with a gun???????
Also the judge, in summing up the case, gave the defence the benefit of the doubt re Jeremy's call to the Police being at 3.26 am as opposed to 3.36 am.
-----------------------------------------------------
The trial judge, Mr Justice drake, gave the defense the benefit of doubt over this matter, because it was being argued by the prosecution that the timing of the call made by Jeremy to his then girlfriend Julie Mugford, had been made after Jeremy's call to the police, not beforehand...
Jeremy stated that he called Julie at about 3:30am, which was after the call he got from his dad, but before the timing of his call to the police at 3:36am...
The timing of the 3:26am, call was introduced by the prosecution to suggest that Jeremy had called the police before he called his girl friend, and that he had called the police at 3:26am, or thereabouts, which was minutes, before he called Julie at 3:30am? The prosecution also got Julie Muforgd to introduce the argument when she testified that the timing of Jeremy's call to her that morning had happened at about 3:15am, not 3:30am, by relying upon the suggestion that a clock which was at the premises where she was in digs was 15 minutes fast...
Imagine that, the clock in the control room 10 minutes fast, and the clock in London in the house where Mugford was in digs, also being 10 to 15 minutes fast?
What a coincidence.,..
So if it was known at the trial that there was a log of a call at 3.26, why on earth would the defence not want to see that? They must have asked where the information came from. I don't believe they didn't know about Malcolm Bonnet's log at the time.
Why would the prosecution be keen to say that Jeremy called Julie after he called the police? What was the point of that?
------------------------------
Your twisting the words to mean something they don't mean - the 3:26am timing came about because of the suggestion that the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, there was no disclosure of the actual log that you keep trying to bring in through the back door...
If the original of that log had been available, it would have been disclosed, and acted upon by the defense who would have wasted no time at all, raising the point about a call from Ralph Bamber...
Why would anyone want to claim the clock was ten minutes fast? That makes no sense whatsoever.
How come the appeal judges knew about the log and the defence didn't - in 2002?
-
I just don't get this stuff about whether Jeremy phoned Julie or the police first. What did it matter? Julie didn't seem to know what time he called anyway. I just can't see the relevance of any of this. The defence would have wanted to know why the prosecution were so interested in the timing and in who was called first.
No, I think they knew about the log, and I think the defence knew about it too.
-
Nevill did not phone the police, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he did, how would he have obtained the tel number. The logs clearly state who made the calls.
Heck you only have a convicted murderers word that Nevill made any call at all!
-
Nevill did not phone the police, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he did, how would he have obtained the tel number. The logs clearly state who made the calls.
Heck you only have a convicted murderers word that Nevill made any call at all!
I agree, and I'm a bit fed up of going round in circles over it. Mike believes Neville called the police, and no amount of logic will convince him otherwise.
-
I can't keep up with all the names, but you'll get the drift.
3.26 JB Phones police station. Officer A answers, notes time on pad, takes details - JB, son, informing father phoned him saying daughter has gone berserk with gun. Officer A puts JB on hold.
Am I mistaken - does officer a despatch car?
Officer A phones Officer B in control room, saying father reports daughter gone berserk with gun.
Officer B records details and time xx
Officer A takes JB off hold - JB complains he's been on hold 11 minutes (Anne Easton mentions JB complaining about the delay).
Could Officer B have written the time it was when he ended the call with Officer A and took action, despatching a car. Is that why it was 3.36am.
Officer A recorded time at start of their call.
Officer B recorded time at end of their call.
?
-
Nevill did not phone the police, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he did, how would he have obtained the tel number. The logs clearly state who made the calls.
Heck you only have a convicted murderers word that Nevill made any call at all!
I agree, and I'm a bit fed up of going round in circles over it. Mike believes Neville called the police, and no amount of logic will convince him otherwise.
---------------------------------------------
maybe Ralph did call the police, no amount of logic will convince you otherwise...
-
I can't keep up with all the names, but you'll get the drift.
3.26 JB Phones police station. Officer A answers, notes time on pad, takes details - JB, son, informing father phoned him saying daughter has gone berserk with gun. Officer A puts JB on hold.
Am I mistaken - does officer a despatch car?
Officer A phones Officer B in control room, saying father reports daughter gone berserk with gun.
Officer B records details and time xx
Officer A takes JB off hold - JB complains he's been on hold 11 minutes (Anne Easton mentions JB complaining about the delay).
Could Officer B have written the time it was when he ended the call with Officer A and took action, despatching a car. Is that why it was 3.36am.
Officer A recorded time at start of their call.
Officer B recorded time at end of their call.
?
+1
That's exactly how I see the calls. I tried explaining it that way earlier but I just couldn't put it right.
Nicely done.
-
Nevill did not phone the police, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he did, how would he have obtained the tel number. The logs clearly state who made the calls.
Heck you only have a convicted murderers word that Nevill made any call at all!
I agree, and I'm a bit fed up of going round in circles over it. Mike believes Neville called the police, and no amount of logic will convince him otherwise.
---------------------------------------------
maybe Ralph did call the police, no amount of logic will convince you otherwise...
Maybe.. but that's only on JB's statement and turning what looks like simple clerical confusion into a mass cover up story.
You are quite right.. he may have called the Police... but there is no worthy proof of that.
As far as I can see... mb1 has summed up my thoughts exactly.
-
I can't keep up with all the names, but you'll get the drift.
3.26 JB Phones police station. Officer A answers, notes time on pad, takes details - JB, son, informing father phoned him saying daughter has gone berserk with gun. Officer A puts JB on hold.
Am I mistaken - does officer a despatch car?
Officer A phones Officer B in control room, saying father reports daughter gone berserk with gun.
Officer B records details and time xx
Officer A takes JB off hold - JB complains he's been on hold 11 minutes (Anne Easton mentions JB complaining about the delay).
Could Officer B have written the time it was when he ended the call with Officer A and took action, despatching a car. Is that why it was 3.36am.
Officer A recorded time at start of their call.
Officer B recorded time at end of their call.
?
Other way round I think. Officer A could have recorded the time he ended the call with Jeremy, and Officer B recorded the time that Officer A called him. ;D
Just to put some names to it:
Officer A who took the call from Jeremy is PC West, AKA 1990. He recorded the time as 3.36.
Officer B is Malcolm Bonnet in the information room, who was actually a civilian rather than a police officer. He recorded the call from PC West as being at 3.26.
-
Nevill did not phone the police, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he did, how would he have obtained the tel number. The logs clearly state who made the calls.
Heck you only have a convicted murderers word that Nevill made any call at all!
I'm curious as to why you ask how Ralph could have obtained the phone number, Hartley?
All hells breaking loose, Sheilas got a gun and is going berserk, I may have already been shot four times, shall I go to the phone and dial 999? Nah I think I'll take a look in the yellow pages and phone Chelmsford nick instead.
Really? Nevill didn't call the police, and in my opinion he didn't call JB, he had already been killed.
-
I can't keep up with all the names, but you'll get the drift.
3.26 JB Phones police station. Officer A answers, notes time on pad, takes details - JB, son, informing father phoned him saying daughter has gone berserk with gun. Officer A puts JB on hold.
Am I mistaken - does officer a despatch car?
Officer A phones Officer B in control room, saying father reports daughter gone berserk with gun.
Officer B records details and time xx
Officer A takes JB off hold - JB complains he's been on hold 11 minutes (Anne Easton mentions JB complaining about the delay).
Could Officer B have written the time it was when he ended the call with Officer A and took action, despatching a car. Is that why it was 3.36am.
Officer A recorded time at start of their call.
Officer B recorded time at end of their call.
?
Other way round I think. Officer A could have recorded the time he ended the call with Jeremy, and Officer B recorded the time that Officer A called him. ;D
Just to put some names to it:
Officer A who took the call from Jeremy is PC West, AKA 1990. He recorded the time as 3.36.
Officer B is Malcolm Bonnet in the information room, who was actually a civilian rather than a police officer. He recorded the call from PC West as being at 3.26.
-----------------------------------------
But Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, and the guns at the house belonged to Ralph...
-
I can't keep up with all the names, but you'll get the drift.
3.26 JB Phones police station. Officer A answers, notes time on pad, takes details - JB, son, informing father phoned him saying daughter has gone berserk with gun. Officer A puts JB on hold.
Am I mistaken - does officer a despatch car?
Officer A phones Officer B in control room, saying father reports daughter gone berserk with gun.
Officer B records details and time xx
Officer A takes JB off hold - JB complains he's been on hold 11 minutes (Anne Easton mentions JB complaining about the delay).
Could Officer B have written the time it was when he ended the call with Officer A and took action, despatching a car. Is that why it was 3.36am.
Officer A recorded time at start of their call.
Officer B recorded time at end of their call.
?
Other way round I think. Officer A could have recorded the time he ended the call with Jeremy, and Officer B recorded the time that Officer A called him. ;D
Just to put some names to it:
Officer A who took the call from Jeremy is PC West, AKA 1990. He recorded the time as 3.36.
Officer B is Malcolm Bonnet in the information room, who was actually a civilian rather than a police officer. He recorded the call from PC West as being at 3.26.
-----------------------------------------
But Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, and the guns at the house belonged to Ralph...
It doesn't matter. You have to remember that Jeremy quoted to PC West what his father said, then PC West had to try and jot it down and then repeat it to Malcolm Bonnet. I can see how all that happened.
-
Nevill did not phone the police, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he did, how would he have obtained the tel number. The logs clearly state who made the calls.
Heck you only have a convicted murderers word that Nevill made any call at all!
I'm curious as to why you ask how Ralph could have obtained the phone number, Hartley?
All jells breaking loose, Sheilas got a gun and is going berserk, I may have already been shot four times, shall I go to the phone and dial 999? Nah I think I'll take a look in the yellow pages and phone Chelmsford nick instead.
Really? Nevill didn't call the police, and in my opinion he didn't call JB, he had already been killed.
-------------------------------
You have no idea at what time Ralph was shot, and whether or not he did not already know the telephone number of the local police station, in his role as a Magistrate? Why would Ralph have to look the telephone number up, for his local police station, if he already knew it? Where is your proof that Ralph did not know the telephone number of his local police station, and or that he was already wounded or not when he contacted the police at 3:26am?
-
I can't keep up with all the names, but you'll get the drift.
3.26 JB Phones police station. Officer A answers, notes time on pad, takes details - JB, son, informing father phoned him saying daughter has gone berserk with gun. Officer A puts JB on hold.
Am I mistaken - does officer a despatch car?
Officer A phones Officer B in control room, saying father reports daughter gone berserk with gun.
Officer B records details and time xx
Officer A takes JB off hold - JB complains he's been on hold 11 minutes (Anne Easton mentions JB complaining about the delay).
Could Officer B have written the time it was when he ended the call with Officer A and took action, despatching a car. Is that why it was 3.36am.
Officer A recorded time at start of their call.
Officer B recorded time at end of their call.
?
Other way round I think. Officer A could have recorded the time he ended the call with Jeremy, and Officer B recorded the time that Officer A called him. ;D
Just to put some names to it:
Officer A who took the call from Jeremy is PC West, AKA 1990. He recorded the time as 3.36.
Officer B is Malcolm Bonnet in the information room, who was actually a civilian rather than a police officer. He recorded the call from PC West as being at 3.26.
-----------------------------------------
But Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, and the guns at the house belonged to Ralph...
It doesn't matter. You have to remember that Jeremy quoted to PC West what his father said, then PC West had to try and jot it down and then repeat it to Malcolm Bonnet. I can see how all that happened.
-------------------------------------------
So, how did Malcolm Bonnet end up with the log from the scene, written in PC Wests handwriting, with the details of Ralph's call on the reverse side?
-
I think alot of the problem is that no one is trying to prove Neville didn't make the call..... we're questioning the evidence that he did... and it's not very convincing at all.
Because some us question does not mean we think he's guilty... but that if we can pick holes in it surely it'll be small fry for the CCRC etc....
-
Quote from: tonyb on February 11, 2011, 07:07:PM
9 to 3 and he would of walked. I wonder what the views are of the original jurors are today
This appeared much earlier in this thread.
The judge can direct for a majority - 7 to 5 does convict. In a 'lifer case' 7 to 5 would probably result in a re-trial. 9 to 3 would convict, unless the judge had directed otherwise.
Does anyone know if the judge gave direction?
-
I can't keep up with all the names, but you'll get the drift.
3.26 JB Phones police station. Officer A answers, notes time on pad, takes details - JB, son, informing father phoned him saying daughter has gone berserk with gun. Officer A puts JB on hold.
Am I mistaken - does officer a despatch car?
Officer A phones Officer B in control room, saying father reports daughter gone berserk with gun.
Officer B records details and time xx
Officer A takes JB off hold - JB complains he's been on hold 11 minutes (Anne Easton mentions JB complaining about the delay).
Could Officer B have written the time it was when he ended the call with Officer A and took action, despatching a car. Is that why it was 3.36am.
Officer A recorded time at start of their call.
Officer B recorded time at end of their call.
?
Other way round I think. Officer A could have recorded the time he ended the call with Jeremy, and Officer B recorded the time that Officer A called him. ;D
Just to put some names to it:
Officer A who took the call from Jeremy is PC West, AKA 1990. He recorded the time as 3.36.
Officer B is Malcolm Bonnet in the information room, who was actually a civilian rather than a police officer. He recorded the call from PC West as being at 3.26.
-----------------------------------------
But Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, and the guns at the house belonged to Ralph...
It doesn't matter. You have to remember that Jeremy quoted to PC West what his father said, then PC West had to try and jot it down and then repeat it to Malcolm Bonnet. I can see how all that happened.
-------------------------------------------
So, how did Malcolm Bonnet end up with the log from the scene, written in PC Wests handwriting, with the details of Ralph's call on the reverse side?
The log from the scene was not in PC West's handwriting in my opinion. I think Malcolm Bonnet wrote the log of the events. He said he kept the log until he went off duty at 5.45. The log of the events from the scene looks like his handwriting to me.
-
I think alot of the problem is that no one is trying to prove Neville didn't make the call..... we're questioning the evidence that he did... and it's not very convincing at all.
Because some us question does not mean we think he's guilty... but that if we can pick holes in it surely it'll be small fry for the CCRC etc....
Yes - Neville not calling the police doesn't mean Jeremy is guilty. However, if I can see the problem with the theory that Neville called the police, I'm sure that appeal judges with years of experience can see it too.
-
People have different views regarding the phone calls /logs, and maybe more evidence will surface.
But given the amount of evidence withheld, is it beyond the realms of possibility that other calls were made that evening / night, that haven't been admitted to? If Jeremy didn't know, I guess he wouldn't know what to ask for?
But why would the police withhold that information when they thought it was murder and suicide? When the relatives went to the police with their theories the police would have just told them that Neville had called the police and that Jeremy couldn't have done it. They would have said the same thing to Julie Mugford as well.
-
People have different views regarding the phone calls /logs, and maybe more evidence will surface.
But given the amount of evidence withheld, is it beyond the realms of possibility that other calls were made that evening / night, that haven't been admitted to? If Jeremy didn't know, I guess he wouldn't know what to ask for?
Very true... but also what must be remembered is that at this point in the investigation a cover up or framing wasn't being considered.. so the cover up happened much after the event... by which time its harder to contain the truth if a cover up has taken place and the more people involved in the cover up the harder it becomes to keep it covered up.
Everytime a cover up is declared another Police officer/civilian support is being accused of perverting the course of justice.
I'm interested to see a list of all the officers that are being accused of being party to the cover up and framing either directly or indirectly (i.e. being gagged by superiors).
-
People have different views regarding the phone calls /logs, and maybe more evidence will surface.
But given the amount of evidence withheld, is it beyond the realms of possibility that other calls were made that evening / night, that haven't been admitted to? If Jeremy didn't know, I guess he wouldn't know what to ask for?
Very true... but also what must be remembered is that at this point in the investigation a cover up or framing wasn't being considered.. so the cover up happened much after the event... by which time its harder to contain the truth if a cover up has taken place and the more people involved in the cover up the harder it becomes to keep it covered up.
Everytime a cover up is declared another Police officer/civilian support is being accused of perverting the course of justice.
I'm interested to see a list of all the officers that are being accused of being party to the cover up and framing either directly or indirectly (i.e. being gagged by superiors).
And none of those officers told their partners, family or friends over the years?
And none of those partners, family or friends had falling outs with those officers over the years and thought - I have a goldmine story?
They all stayed stum for 25 years?
Please! I'm up this late because I'm a grown up!
-
For those of you who think there were two phone calls - one from Neville and one from Jeremy - please consider this.
What you're basically saying is that Neville rang Chelmsford at about 3.26 and told PC West that Sheila had got hold of one of his guns. You're saying that PC West phoned that information through to Malcolm Bonnet, and Malcolm Bonnet sent a car to the scene at 3.35.
You're then saying that Jeremy called PC West at 3.36. If that happened they why didn't PC West tell Jeremy that his father had already phoned?
-
For those of you who think there were two phone calls - one from Neville and one from Jeremy - please consider this.
What you're basically saying is that Neville rang Chelmsford at about 3.26 and told PC West that Sheila had got hold of one of his guns. You're saying that PC West phoned that information through to Malcolm Bonnet, and Malcolm Bonnet sent a car to the scene at 3.35.
You're then saying that Jeremy called PC West at 3.36. If that happened they why didn't PC West tell Jeremy that his father had already phoned?
+1
-
I can't keep up with all the names, but you'll get the drift.
3.26 JB Phones police station. Officer A answers, notes time on pad, takes details - JB, son, informing father phoned him saying daughter has gone berserk with gun. Officer A puts JB on hold.
Am I mistaken - does officer a despatch car?
Officer A phones Officer B in control room, saying father reports daughter gone berserk with gun.
Officer B records details and time xx
Officer A takes JB off hold - JB complains he's been on hold 11 minutes (Anne Easton mentions JB complaining about the delay).
Could Officer B have written the time it was when he ended the call with Officer A and took action, despatching a car. Is that why it was 3.36am.
Officer A recorded time at start of their call.
Officer B recorded time at end of their call.
?
Other way round I think. Officer A could have recorded the time he ended the call with Jeremy, and Officer B recorded the time that Officer A called him. ;D
Just to put some names to it:
Officer A who took the call from Jeremy is PC West, AKA 1990. He recorded the time as 3.36.
Officer B is Malcolm Bonnet in the information room, who was actually a civilian rather than a police officer. He recorded the call from PC West as being at 3.26.
-----------------------------------------
But Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, and the guns at the house belonged to Ralph...
It doesn't matter. You have to remember that Jeremy quoted to PC West what his father said, then PC West had to try and jot it down and then repeat it to Malcolm Bonnet. I can see how all that happened.
-------------------------------------------
So, how did Malcolm Bonnet end up with the log from the scene, written in PC Wests handwriting, with the details of Ralph's call on the reverse side?
The log from the scene was not in PC West's handwriting in my opinion. I think Malcolm Bonnet wrote the log of the events. He said he kept the log until he went off duty at 5.45. The log of the events from the scene looks like his handwriting to me.
... But, details of Ralphs call, timed at 3.26 am, was a photocopy on the reverse of an orignal log, relating to the scene, how could a copy of the phone call timed at 3.26 am, end up on the reverse of an orinal log from the scene? It should be clear to everyone, that somebody has copied the details relating to the 3.26 am, call, onto the reverse of the other log, and that whoever did this, did not want anyone, to get their hands on the original, or to see what was recorded, on the reverse of the original phone log.,
-
... But, details of Ralphs call, timed at 3.26 am, was a photocopy on the reverse of an orignal log, relating to the scene, how could a copy of the phone call timed at 3.26 am, end up on the reverse of an orinal log from the scene? It should be clear to everyone, that somebody has copied the details relating to the 3.26 am, call, onto the reverse of the other log, and that whoever did this, did not want anyone, to get their hands on the original, or to see what was recorded, on the reverse of the original phone log.,
I don't buy that. That would have meant that someone put Malcolm Bonnet's original log of the call into the top of a photocopier to be copied, and then fed the original of the log of the scene through the photocopier. Nobody would have any reason to do that.
If they wanted to hide the log of the call, they would simply hide it, they wouldn't go to the trouble of photocopying it onto the back of the event log.
-
Yes... why introduce something as a photocopy if the intention was to hide it?
Is the suggestion that the photocopying of the document on the reverse was in fact a mistake in their cover up operation?
-
Yes... why introduce something as a photocopy if the intention was to hide it?
Is the suggestion that the photocopying of the document on the reverse was in fact a mistake in their cover up operation?
I don't believe that anyone photocopied any document onto the back of an original one anyone. That makes no sense whatsoever.
-
Yes... why introduce something as a photocopy if the intention was to hide it?
Is the suggestion that the photocopying of the document on the reverse was in fact a mistake in their cover up operation?
+1
-
The document was submitted and court-stamped as evidence.
If submitting a stapled ten page document as evidence, one page would be stamped, not all ten pages or 20 sides. Yet the document in its entirety would still be evidence.
This document was available to the defence, is not new evidence and cannot be used for appeal purposes.
For those of you who think there were two phone calls - one from Neville and one from Jeremy - please consider this.
What you're basically saying is that Neville rang Chelmsford at about 3.26 and told PC West that Sheila had got hold of one of his guns. You're saying that PC West phoned that information through to Malcolm Bonnet, and Malcolm Bonnet sent a car to the scene at 3.35.
You're then saying that Jeremy called PC West at 3.36. If that happened they why didn't PC West tell Jeremy that his father had already phoned?
+1
Precisely. He would have used this information to reassure JB.
-
The document was submitted and court-stamped as evidence.
If submitting a stapled ten page document as evidence, one page would be stamped, not all ten pages or 20 sides. Yet the document in its entirety would still be evidence.
This document was available to the defence, is not new evidence and cannot be used for appeal purposes.
For those of you who think there were two phone calls - one from Neville and one from Jeremy - please consider this.
What you're basically saying is that Neville rang Chelmsford at about 3.26 and told PC West that Sheila had got hold of one of his guns. You're saying that PC West phoned that information through to Malcolm Bonnet, and Malcolm Bonnet sent a car to the scene at 3.35.
You're then saying that Jeremy called PC West at 3.36. If that happened they why didn't PC West tell Jeremy that his father had already phoned?
+1
Precisely. He would have used this information to reassure JB.
PC West would have told Jeremy that he'd already received a call about it from Neville, and he would have told him that it was being dealt with. He wouldn't have needed to keep Jeremy hanging on the phone whilst he spoke to Malcolm Bonnet either - because he would already have contacted Malcolm Bonnet.
Those who think that Malcolm Bonnet's log refers to a call from Neville are clutching at straws in my opinion.
-
The document was submitted and court-stamped as evidence.
If submitting a stapled ten page document as evidence, one page would be stamped, not all ten pages or 20 sides. Yet the document in its entirety would still be evidence.
This document was available to the defence, is not new evidence and cannot be used for appeal purposes.
For those of you who think there were two phone calls - one from Neville and one from Jeremy - please consider this.
What you're basically saying is that Neville rang Chelmsford at about 3.26 and told PC West that Sheila had got hold of one of his guns. You're saying that PC West phoned that information through to Malcolm Bonnet, and Malcolm Bonnet sent a car to the scene at 3.35.
You're then saying that Jeremy called PC West at 3.36. If that happened they why didn't PC West tell Jeremy that his father had already phoned?
+1
Precisely. He would have used this information to reassure JB.
PC West would have told Jeremy that he'd already received a call about it from Neville, and he would have told him that it was being dealt with. He wouldn't have needed to keep Jeremy hanging on the phone whilst he spoke to Malcolm Bonnet either - because he would already have contacted Malcolm Bonnet.
Those who think that Malcolm Bonnet's log refers to a call from Neville are clutching at straws in my opinion.
+1
Again.. very good points.
-
In my opinion these are very important points.
This the point in time when
(i) an alibi is created
(ii) the 'outside world' first becomes aware of there being anything wrong at White House Farm.
-
Is the CCRC going to make some kind of public statement about why they've refused to refer the case back to the appeal court? It would be useful to know why they didn't.
-
Yes, I think in the interests of openness, a statement should be made. Jeremy's media team do an excellent job, but i'd like to see something from the CCRC perspective
-
Well the CCRC have given this 89 page dossier to JB's legal team explaining their reasons, is there any legal reason why JB's legal team can't make that dossier public.
It would be nice to hear a press statement from the CCRC, but as it's only a preliminary decision I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't one until a full decision is made after the 90 day rebuff period.
-
Well the CCRC have given this 89 page dossier to JB's legal team explaining their reasons, is there any legal reason why JB's legal team can't make that dossier public.
It would be nice to hear a press statement from the CCRC, but as it's only a preliminary decision I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't one until a full decision is made after the 90 day rebuff period.
This is an interesting point. Jeremy's team have released half a dozen bullet points already so could they release more if they chose to?
I agree though, we're unlikely to hear anything from CCRC until they make a full decision which may be 6 to 9 months away. (The 3 months takes us to May/June), the CCRC will probably take 10 or 12 weeks to look at the submissions, maybe longer.
-
Why was the fact that Sheila was bleeding fresh blood at aprox 0800 not taken as evidence?
-
Why was the fact that Sheila was bleeding fresh blood at aprox 0800 not taken as evidence?
---------------------------------------
Let us put things into perspective - police did not produce the photograph which shows fresh blood leaking and running and pouring from the wound and the corner of Sheila's mouth, at 10am...
These pictures were not included, as part of the court album, which Essex police, and the DPP, produced for the attention of the court...
Lets get the facts right, so that there can be no mistake, or misunderstanding, the court album only consisted of 50, of the 581 pictures, taken by the police, in connection with these (SC/688/85 and SC/786/85) investigations, there were 531 other pictures which the jury did not get an opportunity to see, or consider...
531 picyures that the court did not get to see, some of which showed fresh blood leaking, pouring and running, from the wound upon Sheila's neck, and the corners of her mouth. If these had been viewed, by the court they would have sent alarm bells ringing, about the claim that Sheila had died at the scene, at around 3am, that morning...
A wicked evil deception in my opinion
-
Direct quote from the findings of the 2002 Appeal:
"... a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf od the appellant in the opening of this appeal by the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner QC on behalf of the appellant felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined..."
Headlines over substance.
-
Direct quote from the findings of the 2002 Appeal:
"... a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf od the appellant in the opening of this appeal by the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner QC on behalf of the appellant felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined..."
Headlines over substance.
-------------------------------------------------------
I think these comments were unjustified - unjustified because a vast amount of evidence was by that stage, being withheld, and to the present date, continues to be withheld, under pii rules...
If all the crime scene pictures (581) had been disclosed to the defense, (instead of a maximum of 223), by the time of the 2002 appeal, the comments could perhaps be justified, but when you consider that over 531 pictures had not been disclosed, by that stage, it was wrong for the appellate court to refer to these grounds for justifying turning the appeal down...
In my opinion...
-
Direct quote from the findings of the 2002 Appeal:
"... a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf od the appellant in the opening of this appeal by the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner QC on behalf of the appellant felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined..."
Headlines over substance.
-------------------------------------------------------
I think these comments were unjustified - unjustified because a vast amount of evidence was by that stage, being withheld, and to the present date, continues to be withheld, under pii rules...
If all the crime scene pictures (581) had been disclosed to the defense, (instead of a maximum of 223), by the time of the 2002 appeal, the comments could perhaps be justified, but when you consider that over 531 pictures had not been disclosed, by that stage, it was wrong for the appellate court to refer to these grounds for justifying turning the appeal down...
In my opinion...
There was also an insistence on questioning 'government agents' which was granted.
When their evidence was given, including questions specific to the appeal, Mr Turner QC (JB's silk) did not cross-examine, even when given the opportunity to do so.
The conspiracy theory disappeared before his very learned and experienced eyes/ears.
Or is Mr Turner QC a useless barrister, in your opinion? Or turned co-conspirator?
-
Direct quote from the findings of the 2002 Appeal:
"... a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf od the appellant in the opening of this appeal by the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner QC on behalf of the appellant felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined..."
Headlines over substance.
-------------------------------------------------------
I think these comments were unjustified - unjustified because a vast amount of evidence was by that stage, being withheld, and to the present date, continues to be withheld, under pii rules...
If all the crime scene pictures (581) had been disclosed to the defense, (instead of a maximum of 223), by the time of the 2002 appeal, the comments could perhaps be justified, but when you consider that over 531 pictures had not been disclosed, by that stage, it was wrong for the appellate court to refer to these grounds for justifying turning the appeal down...
In my opinion...
There was also an insistence on questioning 'government agents' which was granted.
When their evidence was given, including questions specific to the appeal, Mr Turner QC (JB's silk) did not cross-examine, even when given the opportunity to do so.
The conspiracy theory disappeared before his very learned and experienced eyes/ears.
Or is Mr Turner QC a useless barrister, in your opinion? Or turned co-conspirator?
What innocent explanation do you have for EP withholding these photo's ?
-
Direct quote from the findings of the 2002 Appeal:
"... a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf od the appellant in the opening of this appeal by the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner QC on behalf of the appellant felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined..."
Headlines over substance.
-------------------------------------------------------
I think these comments were unjustified - unjustified because a vast amount of evidence was by that stage, being withheld, and to the present date, continues to be withheld, under pii rules...
If all the crime scene pictures (581) had been disclosed to the defense, (instead of a maximum of 223), by the time of the 2002 appeal, the comments could perhaps be justified, but when you consider that over 531 pictures had not been disclosed, by that stage, it was wrong for the appellate court to refer to these grounds for justifying turning the appeal down...
In my opinion...
There was also an insistence on questioning 'government agents' which was granted.
When their evidence was given, including questions specific to the appeal, Mr Turner QC (JB's silk) did not cross-examine, even when given the opportunity to do so.
The conspiracy theory disappeared before his very learned and experienced eyes/ears.
Or is Mr Turner QC a useless barrister, in your opinion? Or turned co-conspirator?
What innocent explanation do you have for EP withholding these photo's ?
---------------------------------
QC's like barristers, are governed by the bar council, and have to follow strict guidelines about what they can, and cannot do, in the same way that solicitors are governed, or controllable, under threat of being reported to the law society, and the legal aid board, if they step over the mark...
A trial judge can report the aforementioned, to one or other, aforementioned bodies, with a view to getting their fees stopped, or reduced...
These features can sometimes restrict the approach of counsel who represent a defendant...
My explanation to your point would be, therefore, that MIke Turner felt, or was restricted, in what he could or could not say, or do, because of the attitude of the Judges who were sitting in Judgement at the appeal hearing (2002)...
I remember clearly as if it were yesterday, my own appeal hearing in 1995, when I was being represented, by Michael Mansfield, QC, at the beginning of the appeal, Mr Mansfield, informed me that we were up against it, because the panel of judges who were dealing with the appeal, were pro-police, and would not entertain any suggestion, that the police were corrupt...
This is what Jeremy, and his legal team, at the time of his appeal in 2002, were up against, in my opinion...
He was unfortunate, to get such a panel of appellate judges, to sit in judgement, on his case in 2002...
-
And that is exactly what he is still up against.
Silks are probably the only 'experts' who won't be 'told'. They guide their clients, and are guided by their clients wishes. But they cannot stand in court and deliberately lie.
The barristers on both sides are interpretors. They tell 'a story' that fits the evidence.
My point is, lots of 'fresh evidence' proclaimed by JB's team actually disappeared before it came before the Appeal Court. Turner could not produce the evidence to support the argument.
Ask the right question of the file...
I once sang a song to Mike Mansfield when he was leaning out a window. He threw a flower down for me. At least, I think it was for, not at... Ah, lost youth!
-
And that is exactly what he is still up against.
Silks are probably the only 'experts' who won't be 'told'. They guide their clients, and are guided by their clients wishes. But they cannot stand in court and deliberately lie.
The barristers on both sides are interpretors. They tell 'a story' that fits the evidence.
My point is, lots of 'fresh evidence' proclaimed by JB's team actually disappeared before it came before the Appeal Court. Turner could not produce the evidence to support the argument.
Ask the right question of the file...
I once sang a song to Mike Mansfield when he was leaning out a window. He threw a flower down for me. At least, I think it was for, not at... Ah, lost youth!
--------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for that...
Silks, like judges, are very intelligent, and can twist something to mean something else, which could be the opposite of what the other side are arguing it means...
I have seen thee people at close quarters, and I understand what they do, and what they are capable of doing...
But if you do not have access to the material you are referring to, I suppose you have to give it up as a bad job. Perhaps Mike Turner gave it up as a bad job, once he realized that the Crown were not going to disclose the material which he felt the court would demand, to be disclosed?
Most of that material which would have supported Mike Turners arguments, is still being withheld today, as we speak - so, under those circumstances, is it any wonder, that He withdrew his arguments, or did not feel that he could continue with them?
-
It makes me so angry when you say certain judges are pro police surely they know what goes on with the police more than anyone. So does that mean that everyone has put all the hard work to get the case refered to the appeal court and jb could be aware he doesn't stand a chance when he sees the names of certain judges are handling the case. Unbelievable
Pot luck if the jurors understand the case and pot luck which judges you get
Great
-
the whole thing seems unfair, i think this case should be reffered to appeal, there are far too many things un answered, for a start the essex police should disclose everything they have, that way we can put an end to speculation and deal with it once and for all.
-
the whole thing seems unfair, i think this case should be reffered to appeal, there are far too many things un answered, for a start the essex police should disclose everything they have, that way we can put an end to speculation and deal with it once and for all.
I agree. Too many unanswered questions and too much evidence being withheld - and although I've nothing against the police it does sound like they may be claiming PII under false pretenses. Twenty-five years has passed. How can it not be in public interests to release that information and stop all this wasted time and money?
-
It makes me so angry when you say certain judges are pro police surely they know what goes on with the police more than anyone. So does that mean that everyone has put all the hard work to get the case refered to the appeal court and jb could be aware he doesn't stand a chance when he sees the names of certain judges are handling the case. Unbelievable
Pot luck if the jurors understand the case and pot luck which judges you get
Great
Being Pro Police doesn't mean that a Judge will allow fraud, contempt, lies and cover ups. It means the Judge believes IN the Police and the job they do.
i come from a family of Judges and know that some Judges use every case they hear as an opertunity to slate the Police and the money they waste with mickey mouse charges etc. It swings both ways, but being Pro something doesn't mean you are corrupt.
The justice system we have is controlled by humans.. humans have emotions and individual thoughts and feelings. A professional will try and rule on evidence and sometimes experience but you can never be sure that individual emotions won't come into it.
-
It makes me so angry ........
Well don't let it. Detach yourself a bit and accept that people have differing ideas, views and opinions.
-
Why was the fact that Sheila was bleeding fresh blood at aprox 0800 not taken as evidence?
-
Why was the fact that Sheila was bleeding fresh blood at aprox 0800 not taken as evidence?
It's only recently been suggested that her blood was wet, and the only evidence is that it appears to be in photographs. Same thing with the rigor mortis and liver mortis.
-
Who was the photographer?????????
I don't know. I'm not sure it matters though, the statement of a photographer would not override the statements of police officers.
And who was it that said the camera never lies.
-
Pc Bird (SOCO) was the photographer.
-
I would h ave thought that the moving of Sheila from the kitchen to the bedroom between 0730 and 0800, while everybody was outside, should have been evidence enough. Or is this incorrect.
-
Who was the photographer?????????
I don't know. I'm not sure it matters though, the statement of a photographer would not override the statements of police officers.
And who was it that said the camera never lies.
A camera doesn't lie but it is not living evidence... What you see is the truth of the picture but not necessarily the truth of the scene/situation.
Give me one image and I'll make two versions that look very different. Neither is lying as they are just displaying the picture.
The lie is in the before and after.
If I have a picture of a blue moon in the sky then that's the truth.. "this is a picture of a blue moon in the sky" that is true... The picture can't be used to decide whether that blue moon exists in the real world or not though.
-
Who was the photographer?????????
I don't know. I'm not sure it matters though, the statement of a photographer would not override the statements of police officers.
And who was it that said the camera never lies.
A camera doesn't lie but it is not living evidence... What you see is the truth of the picture but not necessarily the truth of the scene/situation.
Give me one image and I'll make two versions that look very different. Neither is lying as they are just displaying the picture.
The lie is in the before and after.
If I have a picture of a blue moon in the sky then that's the truth.. "this is a picture of a blue moon in the sky" that is true... The picture can't be used to decide whether that blue moon exists in the real world or not though.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle thought the camera didn't lie (and wanted to believe a certain way) and that's why he was taken in by the infamous Cottingley fairies pictures!
-
Someone had to check Sheila was deceased.
Someone had to check the gun was safe.
Someone had to bag Sheila's hands and feet.
Someone had to collect visible evidence from Sheila's body.
And so on... Until eventually she was carried out in a body bag.
Do I think she was moved? Probably. Would I accept that officers even practiced removing guns? Maybe.
Because of Jeremy's phone call, that morning the police went into the house believing a woman had gone mad with a gun, killed her family and then herself.
Coroner's inquest/court. No big murder trial.
I think the scene/investigation was 'contaminated' by that phone call.
No phone call, no 'live situation', and the police would have arrived in the morning to view a charnel house without preconceptions. Apart from 5 possible murders and a killer/s to be caught. It would have been a very different investigation, of that I am SURE.
-
Who was the photographer?????????
I don't know. I'm not sure it matters though, the statement of a photographer would not override the statements of police officers.
And who was it that said the camera never lies.
A camera doesn't lie but it is not living evidence... What you see is the truth of the picture but not necessarily the truth of the scene/situation.
Give me one image and I'll make two versions that look very different. Neither is lying as they are just displaying the picture.
The lie is in the before and after.
If I have a picture of a blue moon in the sky then that's the truth.. "this is a picture of a blue moon in the sky" that is true... The picture can't be used to decide whether that blue moon exists in the real world or not though.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle thought the camera didn't lie (and wanted to believe a certain way) and that's why he was taken in by the infamous Cottingley fairies pictures!
lol.. yes very true... but the picture didn't lie.. it wasn't one of these magic holagram images that you have to stare at for hours and still only some people see the image kinda things.
Was it a photograph? Yes
Was there fairies in it? Yes
This is all true and fact and only becomes questionable when the photograph is put in context of real life.
An image in the form of a photograph is just a record of what has been recorded and that can be seen in the photograph.. it doesn't prove anything or disprove anything.
Photographs only become good evidence when they have things to back up the image.
-
An image in the form of a photograph is just a record of what has been recorded and that can be seen in the photograph.. it doesn't prove anything or disprove anything.
Photographs only become good evidence when they have things to back up the image.
Just like the alleged moon landings then? ;D
-
An image in the form of a photograph is just a record of what has been recorded and that can be seen in the photograph.. it doesn't prove anything or disprove anything.
Photographs only become good evidence when they have things to back up the image.
Just like the alleged moon landings then? ;D
+1
;D ;D ;D
-
An image in the form of a photograph is just a record of what has been recorded and that can be seen in the photograph.. it doesn't prove anything or disprove anything.
Photographs only become good evidence when they have things to back up the image.
Just like the alleged moon landings then? ;D
Haha... I was going to say that as an example.. along with yeti photo but thought I might be opening a whole new can of worms! :)
-
An image in the form of a photograph is just a record of what has been recorded and that can be seen in the photograph.. it doesn't prove anything or disprove anything.
Photographs only become good evidence when they have things to back up the image.
Just like the alleged moon landings then? ;D
Haha... I was going to say that as an example.. along with yeti photo but thought I might be opening a whole new can of worms! :)
Yeah the Yeti photo would have been a rubbish example. ;)
-
An image in the form of a photograph is just a record of what has been recorded and that can be seen in the photograph.. it doesn't prove anything or disprove anything.
Photographs only become good evidence when they have things to back up the image.
Just like the alleged moon landings then? ;D
Haha... I was going to say that as an example.. along with yeti photo but thought I might be opening a whole new can of worms! :)
Yeah the Yeti photo would have been a rubbish example. ;)
I've got a copy of a photo of the Lochness monster, any takers? ;D
-
I would h ave thought that the moving of Sheila from the kitchen to the bedroom between 0730 and 0800, while everybody was outside, should have been evidence enough. Or is this incorrect.
There is no evidence of that ...
-
It was reported that when the police entered the house at 0730 they found two bodies in the kitchen. One was a woman with a rifle beside her, half an hour later they went in again and found the woman had gone along with the rifle. If this was fiction;what can we believe?
-
It was reported that when the police entered the house at 0730 they found two bodies in the kitchen. One was a woman with a rifle beside her, half an hour later they went in again and found the woman had gone along with the rifle. If this was fiction;what can we believe?
I've seen no report which says that a woman was found in the kitchen with a rifle beside her. Could you please post the police report which says that?
-
I don't have that report, but I have read it often. "when the police found the woman and rifle had gone they locked themselves in and called for help" I have read this several times on JB's site. Someone has remarked that Shiela must have been alive at that time and the police could have saved her!.
I,m becomeing confused now
-
It was reported that when the police entered the house at 0730 they found two bodies in the kitchen. One was a woman with a rifle beside her, half an hour later they went in again and found the woman had gone along with the rifle. If this was fiction;what can we believe?
I've seen no report which says that a woman was found in the kitchen with a rifle beside her. Could you please post the police report which says that?
The problem with the whole 'Sheila half-dead in the kitchen' story - not an official report - is that it defies any form of logic.
If she had the energy to run out of the kitchen, why didn't she run when she heard the police entering?
Why not shoot herself (again) immediately?
-
It was reported that when the police entered the house at 0730 they found two bodies in the kitchen. One was a woman with a rifle beside her, half an hour later they went in again and found the woman had gone along with the rifle. If this was fiction;what can we believe?
I've seen no report which says that a woman was found in the kitchen with a rifle beside her. Could you please post the police report which says that?
The problem with the whole 'Sheila half-dead in the kitchen' story - not an official report - is that it defies any form of logic.
If she had the energy to run out of the kitchen, why didn't she run when she heard the police entering?
Why not shoot herself (again) immediately?
Also if you get shot in the neck then, it's going to bleed a bit right, well a lot I would say? Why isn't there any evidence of a trail of Sheila's blood leading from the kitchen to the main bedroom.
-
Perhaps she was "playing dead" in the kitchen. Perhaps she didn't bleed much after the first shot. Why state that there was two in the kitchen when there was not
-
Jeremy needs Sheila to be alive once he is with the police. So interpreting the logs to support that becomes key. And then promoting that story becomes key. Even if the story seems completely unlikely, reliance is still placed on the logs that have been interpreted to show that Sheila was alive (be it in the upstairs window or in the kitchen).
Of course, this log http://youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/wireless-message-log.html
Doesn't say kitchen.
-
Perhaps she was "playing dead" in the kitchen. Perhaps she didn't bleed much after the first shot. Why state that there was two in the kitchen when there was not
Why play dead?
Why not run or kill yourself immediately you hear the police breaking in.
I asked elsewhere, why choose the kitchen to enter the building?
Good old ma-in-law suggestion:
If the GPO line was open to the kitchen (as reported) they knew this was the one room in the house where there were no sounds of life/occupancy.
-
All the family were shot in a way to enure a kill. Sheila was not; her wounds may not have been fatal.
A killer would have made sure, not by shooting her in the throut. There is enough doubts in this case for Jeremy to have had the benefit
-
All the family were shot in a way to enure a kill. Sheila was not; her wounds may not have been fatal.
A killer would have made sure, not by shooting her in the throut. There is enough doubts in this case for Jeremy to have had the benefit
We do not know that there were hours between the two shots to Sheila.
That argument could be applied to all the other killings - how many headshots to kill Neville? How much trauma to June before the bullet to the forehead?
-
Anybody wonder why not a single shot appears to have missed the target, okay fair enough for the ones at point blank range to a sleeping victim, but what about the shots to Nevill and June?
-
Anybody wonder why not a single shot appears to have missed the target, okay fair enough for the ones at point blank range to a sleeping victim, but what about the shots to Nevill and June?
Working on it!
-
Anybody wonder why not a single shot appears to have missed the target, okay fair enough for the ones at point blank range to a sleeping victim, but what about the shots to Nevill and June?
Yes good point, it does concern me that the children received overkill and grouped execution style head shots.
June got one right between the eyes (lucky maybe!).
And Nevill received a group of headshots as well (including a fight and battering).
No misses!
This was definitely an overkill murder making sure no one would live (or talk)!
This leaves Sheila. If it was a premeditated murder intended to pin the blame on her, the killer (or killers)could not "overkill" her - it had to be precise and in the only possible way with a rifle. The initial "suicide" shot made by the killer fragmented and did not kill her in the intended way, hence the need for a second more clinical shot!
I would be interested to know the angle the rifle would have had to be to deliver the first non fatal shot to Sheilas throat?
The fatal shot was made under her chin straight up in to her brain, I believe. In my limited experience in this field, I believe the usual way is with a barrel in the mouth.
(please accept my apologies if this clarity offends anyone).
-
I realise that the way Sheila was shot; could have been made to look like suicide