Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on March 07, 2011, 12:46:AM
-
Hi could anyone please indicate if there exists on this forum, a thread that groups or labels those documents allegedly withheld under PII / are missing / declared lost / declared destroyed. For example, a chronological list of: whose pocket books, which logs, whose statement etc etc. Obviously the defence team will have looked at the potential time-frames and dates to try and deduce from those, the actual significance of the missing docs re piecing together what actually happened.
References to this kind of stuff is littered throughout various threads / posts. I just wondered whether a chronological list of them (perhaps with a brief explanation of their significance) might prove a handy reference point for posters.
I understand that the defence team allege hundreds of thousands of docs here, so what i am pointing to are docs, at this point, that are known to have KEY relevance.
-
Hi could anyone please indicate if there exists on this forum, a thread that groups or labels those documents allegedly withheld under PII / are missing / declared lost / declared destroyed. For example, a chronological list of: whose pocket books, which logs, whose statement etc etc. Obviously the defence team will have looked at the potential time-frames and dates to try and deduce from those, the actual significance of the missing docs re piecing together what actually happened.
References to this kind of stuff is littered throughout various threads / posts. I just wondered whether a chronological list of them (perhaps with a brief explanation of their significance) might prove a handy reference point for posters.
I understand that the defence team allege hundreds of thousands of docs here, so what i am pointing to are docs, at this point, that are known to have KEY relevance.
... Good suggestion...
-
Are you volunteering then Mike? 8)
-
Are you volunteering then Mike? 8)
--------------------------
-
DC Whiddon's report might make for interesting reading.
-
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5DLsf0UggyWNmQ1NzQyNDQtOWMwYS00NTBmLWFkNWEtY2I4NGM5NzYyOWQ1&hl=en
Entries 598 & 599
-
I'm actually gobsmacked at the items they chose to destroy! Video footage, records of the phone calls from BT :o
-
what time are the ccrc going to announce their decision?
-
Could the black Hugo Boss suit be his funeral attire? That was pricey gear even in those days.
-
I'm actually gobsmacked at the items they chose to destroy! Video footage, records of the phone calls from BT :o
Hard to fathom!
-
what time are the ccrc going to announce their decision?
Today may be the deadline for the the defences response to the initial decision, but I'd then expect there to be a period of time where the CCRC peruse any response from the defence. I doubt the final decision will be made until at the very least two or three weeks time if not longer.
-
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5DLsf0UggyWNmQ1NzQyNDQtOWMwYS00NTBmLWFkNWEtY2I4NGM5NzYyOWQ1&hl=en
Entries 598 & 599
In 1985... what exactly, would have been meant by the description, 'British Telecom extract of calls'?
-
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5DLsf0UggyWNmQ1NzQyNDQtOWMwYS00NTBmLWFkNWEtY2I4NGM5NzYyOWQ1&hl=en
Entries 598 & 599
In 1985... what exactly, would have been meant by the description, 'British Telecom extract of calls'?
They were trunk calls, something to do with New Zealand i think.
-
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5DLsf0UggyWNmQ1NzQyNDQtOWMwYS00NTBmLWFkNWEtY2I4NGM5NzYyOWQ1&hl=en
Entries 598 & 599
In 1985... what exactly, would have been meant by the description, 'British Telecom extract of calls'?
They were trunk calls, something to do with New Zealand i think.
I'm trying to work out if the defense imply that these relate to the two specific calls, i.e. one from WHF and one from 9 Head St. What exactly is meant by 'extracts'? Recordings? Or, do the defense imply that they are the 'rudimentary' records of the calls for a certain period i.e. bills for August '85, for both lines?
paulg.. where does the trunk calls to New Zealand suggestion originate for these two exhibits?
-
Yes, the defence is promoting the theory that two calls were made to police. This off course we know to be balderdash...the only call was made to the police by Jeremy himself.
-
Yes, the defence is promoting the theory that two calls were made to police. This off course we know to be balderdash...the only call was made to the police by Jeremy himself.
I do find the claim that a call was made by Ralph to the police quite puzzling. Was it before or after he called Jeremy? Jeremy told us that Ralph call him and was cut off, was Ralph's call to police cut off too?
If it wasn't cut off then Ralph must have been able to get a coherent message to the police and they would have acted on it?
-
Neville did not call the police at all, if he had this would be a closed case!
-
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5DLsf0UggyWNmQ1NzQyNDQtOWMwYS00NTBmLWFkNWEtY2I4NGM5NzYyOWQ1&hl=en
Entries 598 & 599
In 1985... what exactly, would have been meant by the description, 'British Telecom extract of calls'?
They were trunk calls, something to do with New Zealand i think.
I'm trying to work out if the defense imply that these relate to the two specific calls, i.e. one from WHF and one from 9 Head St. What exactly is meant by 'extracts'? Recordings? Or, do the defense imply that they are the 'rudimentary' records of the calls for a certain period i.e. bills for August '85, for both lines?
paulg.. where does the trunk calls to New Zealand suggestion originate for these two exhibits?
Need to ask my bro on that question, probably best to PM him. I could be wrong, but i'm sure when we've discussed this, he's told me they are trunk call itemised bills.
-
hi paulg am i right in thinking we are forum partners ;)
-
hi paulg am i right in thinking we are forum partners ;)
Well, i've yet to pop the question, been saving up for my cyber JB forum partner ring. :)
Will you, good looking Leeds lass, who makes me smile, be an ageing 45 year old (looking like 55 year old) pop bellied Essex boys, JB forum partner?
-
aye lad, go on then!! YES. and you have to behave, or you wont get any tea ;D
-
Tee hee, i've a big
hard grin.
You never know, i might link you to a picture of me, you'll be able to see exactly how ugly i am.
-
Tee hee, i've a big hard grin.
You never know, i might link you to a picture of me, you'll be able to see exactly how ugly i am.
haha. shall we celebrate? fancy some evo ;) i can hear the buzzzzzz in my head already ;)
-
Tee hee, i've a big hard grin.
You never know, i might link you to a picture of me, you'll be able to see exactly how ugly i am.
haha. shall we celebrate? fancy some evo ;) i can hear the buzzzzzz in my head already ;)
Followed by lighter gas, and a big spliff. ;)
Kids of today just don't know what they're missing. ;D
-
too right!!
-
Mwaah
Is this a first?
Congrats
Andrea keep him in line and keep him away from John!
-
Mwaah
Is this a first?
Congrats
Andrea keep him in line and keep him away from John!
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I bet Jackie, if you searched deep down, its the Johns that make you want to log on to the forum. If everyone just agreed with you, you'd be bored senseless.
Admit it, that moment your finger is hovering over the mouse about to send an arguing post to John, the adrenalin is giving you a buzz.
-
Paulg
Yes I think you are probably right about John I am not sure I have come across with someone so angry all the time.
Paul I would really like to know more about these phone records that have been destroyed have you spoken to your brother about them yet
The destroyed evidence is just something else that makes most people suspicious I hope the law students get stuck right into that one
I am waiting to see what revelation is going to be seen for these negatives that have been witheld for 26 years its a wonder Peter Suthurst hasnt died waiting
-
I can put her blood pressure up and I ain't in the same country!! ;)
Did you get an answer yet about the negatives Jackie or is yet another one of your forlorn promises?
-
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5DLsf0UggyWNmQ1NzQyNDQtOWMwYS00NTBmLWFkNWEtY2I4NGM5NzYyOWQ1&hl=en
Entries 598 & 599
In 1985... what exactly, would have been meant by the description, 'British Telecom extract of calls'?
They were trunk calls, something to do with New Zealand i think.
I'm trying to work out if the defense imply that these relate to the two specific calls, i.e. one from WHF and one from 9 Head St. What exactly is meant by 'extracts'? Recordings? Or, do the defense imply that they are the 'rudimentary' records of the calls for a certain period i.e. bills for August '85, for both lines?
paulg.. where does the trunk calls to New Zealand suggestion originate for these two exhibits?
Need to ask my bro on that question, probably best to PM him. I could be wrong, but i'm sure when we've discussed this, he's told me they are trunk call itemised bills.
Ok thanks paulg. He's studied this case a lot, from what I can remember you saying before?
-
I can put her blood pressure up and I ain't in the same country!! ;)
Did you get an answer yet about the negatives Jackie or is yet another one of your forlorn promises?
Not even on the same planet at times. ;D
-
I can put her blood pressure up and I ain't in the same country!! ;)
Did you get an answer yet about the negatives Jackie or is yet another one of your forlorn promises?
Not even on the same planet at times. ;D
fofl
-
Paulg
Yes I think you are probably right about John I am not sure I have come across with someone so angry all the time.
Paul I would really like to know more about these phone records that have been destroyed have you spoken to your brother about them yet
The destroyed evidence is just something else that makes most people suspicious I hope the law students get stuck right into that one
I am waiting to see what revelation is going to be seen for these negatives that have been witheld for 26 years its a wonder Peter Suthurst hasnt died waiting
Si's a bit "had enough of the forum " at the moment, but i will ask him when i see him.
If you have a search through the old debate he and Mike had about itemised bills, think he makes a reference to it there.
I could be wrong, but i think these bits of evidence were both useless to both sides.