Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on March 14, 2011, 07:36:AM
-
The police wanted to prove who actually made the call, not that such a call was not made...
-
First I've heard of it ....
-
How interesting...
Not that the call was accepted as originating from WHF...
But that you've solved the problem of how to conjure material from nothing.
Standing on the shoulders of Newton and Einstein.
*tips hat*
-
The only thing EP were not sure about, was whether Ralph, the hit man, or Jeremy, made the call...
-
The only thing EP were not sure about, was whether Ralph, the hit man, or Jeremy, made the call...
How were they sure that a call was made?
-
The only thing EP were not sure about, was whether Ralph, the hit man, or Jeremy, made the call...
How were they sure that a call was made?
... Because of phone records linked to business (N&J Bamber Ltd) that was run from Whf...
-
The only thing EP were not sure about, was whether Ralph, the hit man, or Jeremy, made the call...
How were they sure that a call was made?
... Because of phone records linked to business (N&J Bamber Ltd) that was run from Whf...
Mike can you elaborate, up until now I didn't think there was any evidence other than Jeremy's word that a call took place.
-
So the farmhouse had two telephone lines then? Otherwise how could specific phone records be attributed to N&J Bamber Ltd?
-
Any more info on this?
If the police knew a call had been made, they must also know what time it was made surely.
-
So the farmhouse had two telephone lines then? Otherwise how could specific phone records be attributed to N&J Bamber Ltd?
The 2002 Appeal Judgements states that there was only one line.
-
I think if it could be proved that there was a call, there would be more about it in the papers etc ...
-
So the farmhouse had two telephone lines then? Otherwise how could specific phone records be attributed to N&J Bamber Ltd?
The 2002 Appeal Judgements states that there was only one line.
How else can business calls be distinguished from private calls then?
-
How else can business calls be distinguished from private calls then?
They're not?
-
... Because of phone records linked to business (N&J Bamber Ltd) that was run from Whf...
How else can business calls be distinguished from private calls then?
They're not?
Then Mike needs to clarify what phone records existed that could be linked to the business.
-
Business calls were not differentiated per se...
precisely the same billing system is used across the nation, then and now (within any given carrier), then depending on the subscriber, appropriate tariffs applied... AFTER the fact.
The logs exist for private and business, esp in those days...
One telegraph pole, one wire to the house.
It's not impossible that in those days those on a business tariff might get more detailed billing, or the logs kept for longer, but with JB one would assume, connected to the same exchange as Nevill, same carrier (BT) if they couldn't get confirmation of calls JB made, then they wouldn't for NB either.
It was not too long ago that newspapers espoused the 'secret log that proves Nevill phoned the police' - which we've all seen and it hardly proves anything. Some see it as additional evidence to support Bamber, most see it as further confirmation of what we already knew... and appertains to the JB call only.
I eagerly await this new material.
-
Why the vagueness in the first post? I think this thread is meant to tantalise and tease. ;D
-
Yeah, that's my claim to the wife when I'm walking naked around the house...
and she says the same as I'm doing now...
what a load of boll**ks
-
We have been told that there was no billing record for individual calls made from whf, but I have copies of billing information up to July 1985, from 1984...
EP must also have obtained the billing records for August, and September 1985, but have withheld them under pii...
As a result of EP obtaining the billing records from whf, they established that a call from whf to Jeremy's cottage was made. EP obtained the billing records once the nature of the investigation changed from SC/688/85 to SC/786/85, on 6th September 1985, and which coincided with Julie Mugford introducing information about a hit man, being hired by Jeremy, to carry out the killings...
Once the billing information was obtained, EP were satisfied that a call was made from whf to 9 head street, but they started to investigate who could have made the call - was it Ralph Bamber? Was it the hit man? or was it Jeremy Bamber, himself? EP worked on the assumption that a hit man had called Jeremy from whf to tell him "it was done", but once Mathew McDonald was cleared, they abandoned that idea, and focussed on the possibility that Jeremy could have rung his own number from whf, and once Jeremy was in custody, EP seized an answer phone and several cassette tapes from his cottage which they had an expert examine to see if there was any evidence that Jeremy had called himself from the scene, during the early hours of the morning...
The results from the examination of Jeremy's answer phone and the corresponding audio tapes has so far never been disclosed and continues to be withheld under pii...
It should also be noted, that the claims that various clocks, in the control room, and at the boarding house where Mugford was in digs, were ten to fifth-teen minutes fast, is / was nothing but a red herring, designed to build a smokescreen, to cloud the issue over the timing of the actual call that was made from whf to Jeremy's cottage...
As I say...
EP know there was a call made from whf to Jeremy's cottage, they have the billing records to prove it...
They were focusing on trying to identify who actually made the call, not that no such call was ever made...
I do not have the August / September 1985, billing note, but I do have others up to July 1985...
If the other billing details up to July 1985 exist, then the August / September 1985, ones, must also exist...
EP are not disclosing them because it would prove a call was made from WHF to Jeremy's cottage - not who made the call...
in my opinion...
-
Timing of the actual call that was made from WHF to Jeremy's cottage, is believed not to tally exactly, with Jeremy's account, as per the timing he received the call from his father, it is understood to be several minutes out of synchronization, and this is what prompted the police to try and shift the timing of Jeremy's early morning call to his girlfriend Mugford, from 3:30am, to 3:15am, or even around 3am...
-
Hold on!!!
You're talking about WHF to Goldhanger... and not WHF to police?
Might have been an idea to say that.
I have NO doubt at all that that call was made.
Bamber's not a complete moron, he'll have called home as claimed.
However, it only gives him 16 minutes to get home then call the police.
In order to ensure a call really was made, I've always assumed he rigged and answering machine.
-
Jeremy's 'difficulty' (working on the theory he's setting up an alibi) is that he can't be sure what BT can log.
So in making the call, he has to make sure he answers at the other end (answering machine) and he then has to explain why it's taken 15 minutes for him to call the police (having received the call from WHF).
Essentially that makes setting up the call the very last thing JB needs to do before exiting the house.
-
Hold on!!!
You're talking about WHF to Goldhanger... and not WHF to police?
Might have been an idea to say that.
I have NO doubt at all that that call was made.
Bamber's not a complete moron, he'll have called home as claimed.
However, it only gives him 16 minutes to get home then call the police.
In order to ensure a call really was made, I've always assumed he rigged and answering machine.
IF this record of phone calls does exist it WOULD also prove or disprove the alledged call from WHF to the police.
-
Hold on!!!
You're talking about WHF to Goldhanger... and not WHF to police?
Might have been an idea to say that.
I have NO doubt at all that that call was made.
Bamber's not a complete moron, he'll have called home as claimed.
However, it only gives him 16 minutes to get home then call the police.
In order to ensure a call really was made, I've always assumed he rigged and answering machine.
-----------------------------
Hold on - if phone billing record exists, and I have no reason to believe that it does not, because as I say I have got the 1984 up to July 1985 billing notes from whf, then the call made to the police (as per the 3:26am log) will be recorded on the same billing note - and this is why EP may be withholding it under pii...
-
I think I just said that, more or less :D
-
I think I just said that, more or less :D
-----------------------
Our comments crossed paths - as I was posting a message came up to warn me that there had been another post (which was yours). I give you credit for stealing my thunder, or did I steal your thunder?
Anyway...
I haven't got the August / September 1985 billing note, only the 1984 to July 1985, ones...
But EP and the DPP / CPS must have got the ones that are missing...
-
I also have billing records for international calls made from WHF for the same periods 1984 to July 1985...
-
I also have billing records for international calls made from WHF for the same periods 1984 to July 1985...
How did you get them , then why couldnt you get the others , what or who stopped you ?
-
In October 1986, during Jeremy's trial, this was why both phone logs were not disclosed to the court to suggest that Jeremy's call had been made at 3:26am, not 3:36am - because EP and the DPP / CPS, had the billing phone records from whf for August / September 1985, and contained in those records would have been information that either contradicted one or other of these claims, or confirming one, or both, or neither...
in my opinion...
-
I also have billing records for international calls made from WHF for the same periods 1984 to July 1985...
How diid you get them , then why couldnt you get the others , what or who stopped you ?
-------------------------------
How did I get them?
Long story - but many many years ago, the person who was holding all of Jeremy's file, (which he got as a result of the failed 2002 failed appeal and COLPs 1991 investigation) gave Jeremy an ultimatum, that they were going to have to dispose of the files and they wanted Jeremy to take them off their hands because they were taking up a huge space in their garage. Well, Jeremy couldn't have them sent into HMP Full Sutton, because of storage problems, and because I was acting as his McKensie man, at that time, because he could not get Legal aid, I was asked if I would take control of everything? I only agreed on the basis that if I took possession of them, to save them from being destroyed, that I would carry out my own investigation into all the material, and present some of my findings to Jeremy, so that he could look at it, and decide whether or not to submit it to the CCRC, or whatever? Amongst all this material which I have in my possession are documents which back up many of the claims I have been making, including the billing records from 1984 to July 1985...
Hope this helps...
I have over 50,000 documents and records etc...
I am not allowed to publish many of the doc's and material I have control over, because of an agreement I have with Jeremy, and I would not do that at any cost, because his liberty may rest upon things under my control, and in my possession...
-
Hold on!!!
You're talking about WHF to Goldhanger... and not WHF to police?
Might have been an idea to say that.
I have NO doubt at all that that call was made.
Bamber's not a complete moron, he'll have called home as claimed.
However, it only gives him 16 minutes to get home then call the police.
In order to ensure a call really was made, I've always assumed he rigged and answering machine.
Then why did he confess to his lass and then finish her!!!? :P
-
Business calls were not differentiated per se...
precisely the same billing system is used across the nation, then and now (within any given carrier), then depending on the subscriber, appropriate tariffs applied... AFTER the fact.
The logs exist for private and business, esp in those days...
One telegraph pole, one wire to the house.
It's not impossible that in those days those on a business tariff might get more detailed billing, or the logs kept for longer, but with JB one would assume, connected to the same exchange as Nevill, same carrier (BT) if they couldn't get confirmation of calls JB made, then they wouldn't for NB either.
It was not too long ago that newspapers espoused the 'secret log that proves Nevill phoned the police' - which we've all seen and it hardly proves anything. Some see it as additional evidence to support Bamber, most see it as further confirmation of what we already knew... and appertains to the JB call only.
I eagerly await this new material.
I believe itemised billing was available on commercial accounts at that time.
-
EP worked on the assumption that Jeremy could have called himself from whf, but they did not / could not find any evidence to support or back such a theory up...
-
Business calls were not differentiated per se...
precisely the same billing system is used across the nation, then and now (within any given carrier), then depending on the subscriber, appropriate tariffs applied... AFTER the fact.
The logs exist for private and business, esp in those days...
One telegraph pole, one wire to the house.
It's not impossible that in those days those on a business tariff might get more detailed billing, or the logs kept for longer, but with JB one would assume, connected to the same exchange as Nevill, same carrier (BT) if they couldn't get confirmation of calls JB made, then they wouldn't for NB either.
It was not too long ago that newspapers espoused the 'secret log that proves Nevill phoned the police' - which we've all seen and it hardly proves anything. Some see it as additional evidence to support Bamber, most see it as further confirmation of what we already knew... and appertains to the JB call only.
I eagerly await this new material.
I believe itemised billing was available on commercial accounts at that time.
-----------------------
I have got copies of billing (itemized) from 1984 to July 1985, so, Yes, they did and do exist...
But I ain't got the August / September 1985, ones, which are crucial - but EP must have obtained them as part of their investigation into this matter...
-
The answer phone from Jeremy's cottage, and the audio tapes they took, were never made official exhibits in the case, and neither were any itemized phone bills...
I find that strange, considering that EP were seriously looking into the possibility that JB could have made the call to himself from whf, to his cottage?
-
Hold on!!!
You're talking about WHF to Goldhanger... and not WHF to police?
Might have been an idea to say that.
I have NO doubt at all that that call was made.
Bamber's not a complete moron, he'll have called home as claimed.
However, it only gives him 16 minutes to get home then call the police.
In order to ensure a call really was made, I've always assumed he rigged and answering machine.
Then why did he confess to his lass and then finish her!!!? :P
Cos the things you women make us say! and dress up in!
Wait... STRIKE that from the record!
-
I imagine EP also obtained the billing records for Jeremy's phone, and the call he made to Julie, that morning (7th August 1985)...
I also imagine EP got the billing details to confirm when Pamela Boutflour, called JUne Bamber, on the evening of 6th August, 1985...
-
Sorry but this is absurd. For 25 years the issue has been whether there was a call from the farm to Jeremy's house, and I have been led to believe that no such information was available - that's why it was a matter of Jeremy's credibility when it came to the issue of whether such a phone call existed. I've said on here a few times that I thought BT would have been more advanced than that at the time, and I couldn't understand why they couldn't say if there had been a call or not.
Now there's suddenly a claim that they could tell if there was a call or not and that the police knew all about such a call. All those questions about when Jeremy called Julie and yet the defence didn't know that the police knew there was a call from the farm and at what time? I just don't buy it unless I see some evidence of that.
-
Sorry but this is absurd. For 25 years the issue has been whether there was a call from the farm to Jeremy's house, and I have been led to believe that no such information was available - that's why it was a matter of Jeremy's credibility when it came to the issue of whether such a phone call existed. I've said on here a few times that I thought BT would have been more advanced than that at the time, and I couldn't understand why they couldn't say if there had been a call or not.
Now there's suddenly a claim that they could tell if there was a call or not and that the police knew all about such a call. All those questions about when Jeremy called Julie and yet the defence didn't know that the police knew there was a call from the farm and at what time? I just don't buy it unless I see some evidence of that.
------------------------
At no stage have the GPO said that they did not issue itemized billing details for the account at whf in August / September 1985? If such a document exists, then please direct me toward it...
-
Sorry but this is absurd. For 25 years the issue has been whether there was a call from the farm to Jeremy's house, and I have been led to believe that no such information was available - that's why it was a matter of Jeremy's credibility when it came to the issue of whether such a phone call existed. I've said on here a few times that I thought BT would have been more advanced than that at the time, and I couldn't understand why they couldn't say if there had been a call or not.
Now there's suddenly a claim that they could tell if there was a call or not and that the police knew all about such a call. All those questions about when Jeremy called Julie and yet the defence didn't know that the police knew there was a call from the farm and at what time? I just don't buy it unless I see some evidence of that.
------------------------
At no stage have the GPO said that they did not issue itemized billing details for the account at whf in August / September 1985? If such a document exists, then please direct me toward it...
Did Rivilin ask where are these bills at trial ?
-
Why did nobody say "hold on, MY bill tells me all the numbers, times, dates etc" in 1985?
Esp the defence team.
I dont think it was every doubted that JB could set up the call himself. The question was did Nevill himself make it?
Nobody at BT came forward?
-
Sorry but this is absurd. For 25 years the issue has been whether there was a call from the farm to Jeremy's house, and I have been led to believe that no such information was available - that's why it was a matter of Jeremy's credibility when it came to the issue of whether such a phone call existed. I've said on here a few times that I thought BT would have been more advanced than that at the time, and I couldn't understand why they couldn't say if there had been a call or not.
Now there's suddenly a claim that they could tell if there was a call or not and that the police knew all about such a call. All those questions about when Jeremy called Julie and yet the defence didn't know that the police knew there was a call from the farm and at what time? I just don't buy it unless I see some evidence of that.
------------------------
At no stage have the GPO said that they did not issue itemized billing details for the account at whf in August / September 1985? If such a document exists, then please direct me toward it...
Oh come on. Every commentary on the case has implied that no such thing existed at the time and that's why it was Jeremy's word against the police's opinion whether he received a call or not. If such a timed call existed then why were there so many questions about when Jeremy called Julie and so much speculation about when Jeremy might have received a call from his father?
-
Why did nobody say "hold on, MY bill tells me all the numbers, times, dates etc" in 1985?
Esp the defence team.
I dont think it was every doubted that JB could set up the call himself. The question was did Nevill himself make it?
Nobody at BT came forward?
I've read nothing about this at the trial. I've read nothing about the prosecution saying that Jeremy called his own house - nothing whatsoever.
-
Sorry but this is absurd. For 25 years the issue has been whether there was a call from the farm to Jeremy's house, and I have been led to believe that no such information was available - that's why it was a matter of Jeremy's credibility when it came to the issue of whether such a phone call existed. I've said on here a few times that I thought BT would have been more advanced than that at the time, and I couldn't understand why they couldn't say if there had been a call or not.
Now there's suddenly a claim that they could tell if there was a call or not and that the police knew all about such a call. All those questions about when Jeremy called Julie and yet the defence didn't know that the police knew there was a call from the farm and at what time? I just don't buy it unless I see some evidence of that.
------------------------
At no stage have the GPO said that they did not issue itemized billing details for the account at whf in August / September 1985? If such a document exists, then please direct me toward it...
Oh come on. Every commentary on the case has implied that no such thing existed at the time and that's why it was Jeremy's word against the police's opinion whether he received a call or not. If such a timed call existed then why were there so many questions about when Jeremy called Julie and so much speculation about when Jeremy might have received a call from his father?
If you can show us the earlier one then it is a fact there is a later one !
-
Sorry but this is absurd. For 25 years the issue has been whether there was a call from the farm to Jeremy's house, and I have been led to believe that no such information was available - that's why it was a matter of Jeremy's credibility when it came to the issue of whether such a phone call existed. I've said on here a few times that I thought BT would have been more advanced than that at the time, and I couldn't understand why they couldn't say if there had been a call or not.
Now there's suddenly a claim that they could tell if there was a call or not and that the police knew all about such a call. All those questions about when Jeremy called Julie and yet the defence didn't know that the police knew there was a call from the farm and at what time? I just don't buy it unless I see some evidence of that.
------------------------
At no stage have the GPO said that they did not issue itemized billing details for the account at whf in August / September 1985? If such a document exists, then please direct me toward it...
Oh come on. Every commentary on the case has implied that no such thing existed at the time and that's why it was Jeremy's word against the police's opinion whether he received a call or not. If such a timed call existed then why were there so many questions about when Jeremy called Julie and so much speculation about when Jeremy might have received a call from his father?
If you can show us the earlier one then it is a fact there is a later one !
What do you mean?
-
Why did nobody say "hold on, MY bill tells me all the numbers, times, dates etc" in 1985?
Esp the defence team.
I dont think it was every doubted that JB could set up the call himself. The question was did Nevill himself make it?
Nobody at BT came forward?
-------------------------------
But you and everyone else are going to be hearing about it all very soon...
It'll be all over the papers, with copies of the July billing records, if and when CCRC decide not to refer Jeremy's case back to the court of appeal - I should think...
I've read nothing about this at the trial. I've read nothing about the prosecution saying that Jeremy called his own house - nothing whatsoever.
-
From the appeal document ...
There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days.
-
Why did nobody say "hold on, MY bill tells me all the numbers, times, dates etc" in 1985?
Esp the defence team.
I dont think it was every doubted that JB could set up the call himself. The question was did Nevill himself make it?
Nobody at BT came forward?
-----------------------------
Nobody at the GPO was asked to come forward...
-
The earlier telephone bill , if MT can show it then it follow's there was a later one ?
-
The earlier telephone bill , if MT can show it then it follow's there was a later one ?
Yes, but he hasn't shown it has he?
-
From the appeal document ...
There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days.
------------------------
But there is, and so where does that leave the judgement in the appeal of 2002?
-
From the appeal document ...
There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days.
------------------------
But there is, and so where does that leave the judgement in the appeal of 2002?
Where does it leave the defence you mean? Nobody thought to check if itemised bills were available? I would have thought that would be the first thing the defence would do.
-
The earlier telephone bill , if MT can show it then it follow's there was a later one ?
-----------------------------------------
Once CCRC makes it's decision, I will consider posting the earlier billing notes, from 1984 to July 1985, for the account at whf, here on this forum...
-
The earlier telephone bill , if MT can show it then it follow's there was a later one ?
Yes, but he hasn't shown it has he?
No . i am asking can he ?
-
Is this something you've just found out Mike? There have been several conversations on here about it and whether itemised billing was available then. I've said myself that I was surprised that there wasn't. Now you suddenly come out with this stuff.
-
The earlier telephone bill , if MT can show it then it follow's there was a later one ?
Yes, but he hasn't shown it has he?
No . i am asking can he ?
Oh I see. It's just that you replied to me before rather than Mike. ;D
-
Is this something you've just found out Mike? There have been several conversations on here about it and whether itemised billing was available then. I've said myself that I was surprised that there wasn't. Now you suddenly come out with this stuff.
-------------------------------------------
Iv'e had this information and these billing notes since 2003...
-
Is this something you've just found out Mike? There have been several conversations on here about it and whether itemised billing was available then. I've said myself that I was surprised that there wasn't. Now you suddenly come out with this stuff.
-------------------------------------------
Iv'e had this information and these billing notes since 2003...
So you sat there and ignored all the conversations about it on here even though you've had the information for seven years, and then suddenly decided to introduce it for no apparent reason.
I'm beginning to think you're playing some weird kind of game here.
-
Why did nobody say "hold on, MY bill tells me all the numbers, times, dates etc" in 1985?
Esp the defence team.
I dont think it was every doubted that JB could set up the call himself. The question was did Nevill himself make it?
Nobody at BT came forward?
-----------------------------
Nobody at the GPO was asked to come forward...
That's not what I mean... this was on the news at the time, it was a MASSIVE case... if you had looked at those records for the police (e.g. retrieved them) and you heard that they couldn't prove the call happened, wouldn't you be telling people?
Can I just clarify, you have a record of WHF calling Goldhanger at 3.26? do you have a duration?
And do you have a Goldhanger record of then JB called the police?
-
I thought mike said he had the records up to the murders but the important ones being help underPII
-
Seems we all thought there was no hope for establishing the existence of those calls for not.
But, now, from the very edge of hope, they've arrived. The logs that prove a call was made.
Quite a miracle I'd say.
I am quite stunned by this revelation to be honest. I've put the kettle on in celebration.
-
Seems we all thought there was no hope for establishing the existence of those calls for not.
But, now, from the very edge of hope, they've arrived. The logs that prove a call was made.
Quite a miracle I'd say.
I am quite stunned by this revelation to be honest. I've put the kettle on in celebration.
Yes, mystery solved I'd say - after all this time. ;D
-
I thought mike said he had the records up to the murders but the important ones being help underPII
Well then how does he know that there was a call from the farm to Jeremy's house?
-
I just KNOW there's a Betamax video of the murder on CCTV somewhere.
It's being held back though, because there's 3 episodes of the Sweeny on the end of too, and the lads at EP haven't finished watching it yet though.
-
I just KNOW there's a Betamax video of the murder on CCTV somewhere.
It's being held back though, because there's 3 episodes of the Sweeny on the end of too, and the lads at EP haven't finished watching it yet though.
I heard it was Miami Vice. ;D
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/11/scotland-yard-daniel-morgan-killers?INTCMP=SRCH Murder trial's get messed up for many reason's
-
Good example Jon especially as it was of a similar time and I liked the reference to coaching of witnesses remind you of anyone ? Jm
I look forward to any scrap of evidence that anyone could dig up but if there are records available someone needs shooting!
-
'someone needs shooting'....
You should be writing professionally!
-
I just KNOW there's a Betamax video of the murder on CCTV somewhere.
It's being held back though, because there's 3 episodes of the Sweeny on the end of too, and the lads at EP haven't finished watching it yet though.
looooool :'(
-
. . . EP seized an answer phone and several cassette tapes from his cottage . . . The results from the examination of Jeremy's answer phone and the corresponding audio tapes has so far never been disclosed...
Jeremy's answering machine is a red herring, since Jeremy would have mentioned it a lot if it had recorded any part of Nevill's call, and EP would have used it as evidence if it held anything else of relevance to the case. If the machine was connected to the line, it was probably not set to answer automatically at the time, so that it held nothing useful. In those days, answering machines couldn't tell when or from what number a call was received, and didn't retain any information about callers who didn't leave a message.
We have been told that there was no billing record for individual calls made from whf, but I have copies of billing information up to July 1985, ...
Was the WHF telephone bill for July 1985 fully itemized, as distinct from partially itemized (which meant that local calls were not individually listed, just summarized)?
Also, bills at that time were issued by British Telecom, so why have you been referring to the GPO?
Once the billing information was obtained, EP were satisfied that a call was made from whf to 9 head street, but they started to investigate who could have made the call - was it Ralph Bamber?
What police documents do you have copies of that show this to be the case?
-
Jeremy's answer machine had a delay feature, which was adjustable...
-
Settings, and any recordings on the seized audio tapes, were of interest to the EP investigation...
-
EP examined the audio tapes hoping to get clues of the identity of the caller, or background noises...
-
JB's answer phone was / is not, a red herring - EP treated it as potentially being a significant piece of evidence...
-
IF (MASSIVE IF) an answer machine was utilised, it would be for the sole purpose of 'answering' a call from WHF at 3.00 (or so) in the morning.
As soon as Jeremy got home, he destroys the tape.
Jeremy almost certainly couldn't be sure if BT would be able to log the call or not, esp not when it came to pulling out all the stops in a murder enquiry, so it would make some degree of sense of for him to actually make sure a call happened (rather than just leave the phone off the hook and hope BT couldn't prove anything).
In order to answer the phone at Goldhanger (without him being there of course) an answer machine would be fine. There would be no voice, since Nevill was probably dead by then AND Nevill's voice on tape would have been no help to his defence.... it would make it worse.
Now, it would clearly NOT be in Jeremy's interests for any recording to be heard, even if silent, since this would only help to establish that he wasn't at Goldhanger.
The only 'worrying' part for Jeremy is that he must make the call from WHF and then get home as fast as possible in order to call the police, then get cleaned up as quickly as possible.
For those that think he didn't make the call, just left the phone off the hook... that's possible too of course but here's the pro's and cons:
Leave phone off the hook only:
1) If BT can prove no call was made, he's in trouble (huge con)
2) There's no tape to get rid of (minor pro)
Make the call (using answering machine):
1) If BT can prove the call was made, he's covered (huge pro)
2) If the tape is found he's in trouble (con)
3) He has to explain 15 minutes between the WHF call and his call to the police from Goldhanger (con)
For me personally, I'd have gone for the answering machine - because I'd be worried about what BT might be able to prove or not. But making no call still seems a very fair option too.
As for the police grabbing any answering machine / tapes...
By the time they'd got around to it, there'd be no evidence. In fact, Jeremy only has to destroy one one cassete tape (the old standard size, or possible a mini sized one). There weren't many solid state machines around in those days.
of course ALL of this presupposes that Jeremy did it.
If he didn't... I can't really see there being a recording of Nevill saying "Jeremy my boy, daddy here, sorry to call you at such an unseemly hour, I wonder if you might get back to me whenever is convenient - it's your sister, she's had a bit of a to do with the rifle. Tally ho!"
-
EP would have taken all possibilities into account when they seized the answer phone - Jeremy never claimed the call from RB was answered by his answer phone machine, EP just seized it as part of thier investigation at a time when they had other information to go on, including info' from JM, including the billing info', and details, of which also involved the timing of the other calls made to the police, by RB and JB, and the other call JB made to JM, the significance of which is now all apparent...
-
Because of the potential detail contained on the billing note, I believe that some people are making the mistake of trying to substitute the detail from the 3.36am message log, with the detail in the 3.26am log, one for the other, but if the control room clock was ten minutes fast, I think the timings of both message logs, need to be advanced by ten minutes, so that one call (from RB) was made at 3.16am, and the other, made by JB, was made at 3.26am - not just a case of keeping the contents of one (3.26am), and reffering to it, as another version of the later (3.36am) version...
-
Because of the potential detail contained on the billing note, I believe that some people are making the mistake of trying to substitute the detail from the 3.36am message log, with the detail in the 3.26am log, one for the other, but if the control room clock was ten minutes fast, I think the timings of both message logs, need to be advanced by ten minutes, so that one call (from RB) was made at 3.16am, and the other, made by JB, was made at 3.26am - not just a case of keeping the contents of one (3.26am), and reffering to it, as another version of the later (3.36am) version...
PC West and Malcolm weren't looking at the same clock though were they?
I've asked before where they were in relation to each other but nobody seems to know.
-
Because of the potential detail contained on the billing note, I believe that some people are making the mistake of trying to substitute the detail from the 3.36am message log, with the detail in the 3.26am log, one for the other, but if the control room clock was ten minutes fast, I think the timings of both message logs, need to be advanced by ten minutes, so that one call (from RB) was made at 3.16am, and the other, made by JB, was made at 3.26am - not just a case of keeping the contents of one (3.26am), and reffering to it, as another version of the later (3.36am) version...
PC West and Malcolm weren't looking at the same clock though were they?
I've asked before where they were in relation to each other but nobody seems to know.
... Same clock - (if true), 3.26am call was recieved at 3.16am...
-
Because of the potential detail contained on the billing note, I believe that some people are making the mistake of trying to substitute the detail from the 3.36am message log, with the detail in the 3.26am log, one for the other, but if the control room clock was ten minutes fast, I think the timings of both message logs, need to be advanced by ten minutes, so that one call (from RB) was made at 3.16am, and the other, made by JB, was made at 3.26am - not just a case of keeping the contents of one (3.26am), and reffering to it, as another version of the later (3.36am) version...
PC West and Malcolm weren't looking at the same clock though were they?
I've asked before where they were in relation to each other but nobody seems to know.
... Same clock - (if true), 3.26am call was recieved at 3.16am...
So were they in the same room? I get the impression that they weren't.
-
This is where the missing August (1985) billing note, may come into significance?
-
EP would have taken all possibilities into account when they seized the answer phone - Jeremy never claimed the call from RB was answered by his answer phone machine, EP just seized it as part of thier investigation at a time when they had other information to go on, including info' from JM, including the billing info', and details, of which also involved the timing of the other calls made to the police, by RB and JB, and the other call JB made to JM, the significance of which is now all apparent...
Well of course he wouldn't claim that... he was supposed to BE at the receiving end. The last thing he'd admit to was not answering the call.
As for the police seizing anything - it was all too late by the time they got around to anything.... certainly too late to recover anything from the machine.
-
PC West and Malcolm weren't looking at the same clock though were they?
I've asked before where they were in relation to each other but nobody seems to know.
... Same clock - (if true), 3.26am call was recieved at 3.16am...
[/quote]
So were they in the same room? I get the impression that they weren't.
[/quote]
No they weren't in the same room, they wouldn't need to contact each other by exchange or radio if they were.
Besides the maths don't work by advancing both logs by 10 minutes.
West contacted Bonnet at 3:26 as per the Bonnets log.
JB's call to West was logged at 3:36 but it was agreed in court that it must have been at 3:26 or shortly before.
JB's call to West came before West's call to Bonnet, it couldn't have happened any other way.
-
PC West and Malcolm weren't looking at the same clock though were they?
I've asked before where they were in relation to each other but nobody seems to know.
... Same clock - (if true), 3.26am call was recieved at 3.16am...
So were they in the same room? I get the impression that they weren't.
[/quote]
No they weren't in the same room, they wouldn't need to contact each other by exchange or radio if they were.
Besides the maths don't work by advancing both logs by 10 minutes.
West contacted Bonnet at 3:26 as per the Bonnets log.
JB's call to West was logged at 3:36 but it was agreed in court that it must have been at 3:26 or shortly before.
JB's call to West came before West's call to Bonnet, it couldn't have happened any other way.
[/quote]
Just out of curiosity:
03:36 03:26
West -----------------> Bonnet
So, because Bonnet said 03:26 in his log, it was assumed West was mistaken in his log (should have been 03:26).
At this level, Bonnet was just as likely to be wrong as West and should have written 03:36.
So I assume they went with Bonnet being accurate due to consequential actions and timings between 3:26 - 3:36 (i.e. depatching cars to the scene and such). If any of Bonnet's actions occur before 3:36, then HE had to have been right, and the time was 3:26.
That seem logical to you?
-
Completely logical. I wish I could think like you ;D
-
Just out of curiosity:
03:36 03:26
West -----------------> Bonnet
So, because Bonnet said 03:26 in his log, it was assumed West was mistaken in his log (should have been 03:26).
At this level, Bonnet was just as likely to be wrong as West and should have written 03:36.
So I assume they went with Bonnet being accurate due to consequential actions and timings between 3:26 - 3:36 (i.e. depatching cars to the scene and such). If any of Bonnet's actions occur before 3:36, then HE had to have been right, and the time was 3:26.
That seem logical to you?
Yes that's as I understand it.
-
Just out of curiosity:
03:36 03:26
West -----------------> Bonnet
So, because Bonnet said 03:26 in his log, it was assumed West was mistaken in his log (should have been 03:26).
At this level, Bonnet was just as likely to be wrong as West and should have written 03:36.
So I assume they went with Bonnet being accurate due to consequential actions and timings between 3:26 - 3:36 (i.e. depatching cars to the scene and such). If any of Bonnet's actions occur before 3:36, then HE had to have been right, and the time was 3:26.
That seem logical to you?
Yes that's as I understand it.
... Unless, RB made an earlier call, before JB to the police - and if, MB did not make the notes up for the 3.26am log, until later (I do not think the photocopy of the 3.26am phone message that was copied on the reverse of the 4.02am log was genuinely written up, as claimed, I think its been modified to try and make it fit the prosecutions case) - in other words, it doesn't mean what the prosecution suggest it means at all, its a forgery...
-
JB's answer phone was / is not, a red herring - EP treated it as potentially being a significant piece of evidence...
I meant that it's now a red herring. It might have helped the initial EP investigation confirm Jeremy's account, in which case Jeremy would have wanted the machine to be used in evidence at his trial, but it couldn't have helped the second EP investigation prove his involvement in the murders.
If Jeremy was innocent and the machine had started to answer Nevill's call, it's likely that Jeremy would have woken up and lifted the telephone handset, which stops the machine, before it started to record. If it had recorded anything before he stopped it, he would have known that it had and wanted the consequent analysis to be available at his trial.
The answering delay is completely irrelevant, as no answering machine stores any indication of what happens during the delay period.
-
JB's answer phone was / is not, a red herring - EP treated it as potentially being a significant piece of evidence...
I meant that it's now a red herring. It might have helped the initial EP investigation confirm Jeremy's account, in which case Jeremy would have wanted the machine to be used in evidence at his trial, but it couldn't have helped the second EP investigation prove his involvement in the murders.
If Jeremy was innocent and the machine had started to answer Nevill's call, it's likely that Jeremy would have woken up and lifted the telephone handset, which stops the machine, before it started to record. If it had recorded anything before he stopped it, he would have known that it had and wanted the consequent analysis to be available at his trial.
The answering delay is completely irrelevant, as no answering machine stores any indication of what happens during the delay period.
Totally agreed.
My answer machine theory only relates to setting up an end to end call (with Nevill initiating the call from WHF to his Goldhanger, and having it auto answer (as though he himself were at Goldhanger).
There's nothing NOW to be gained from it all.
-
Totally agreed.
My answer machine theory only relates to setting up an end to end call (with Nevill initiating the call from WHF to his Goldhanger, and having it auto answer (as though he himself were at Goldhanger).
There's nothing NOW to be gained from it all.
Do you mean Jeremy?
-
Answer machine is integral part of case, proving he did not make call to himself, taking into account, the other evidence linked to this matter...
-
... Unless, RB made an earlier call, before JB to the police - and if, MB did not make the notes up for the 3.26am log, until later (I do not think the photocopy of the 3.26am phone message that was copied on the reverse of the 4.02am log was genuinely written up, as claimed, I think its been modified to try and make it fit the prosecutions case) - in other words, it doesn't mean what the prosecution suggest it means at all, its a forgery...
We've been here before though haven't we?
In this alleged call from Nevill to JB, Nevill didn't tell JB that he had already called the police, as stated by JB. If Nevill had already called the police he would not withold that information during the call to JB.
The copy of one call log on the back of another was just that, a photocopy, given out at trial. The originals were not on the reverse sides of a single piece of paper.
What do you base your accusation that a document has been modified or forged, and when did this allegedly take place?
-
Answer machine is integral part of case, proving he did not make call to himself, taking into account, the other evidence linked to this matter...
No, it proves nothing because it has not been established that call even took place.
If you forgive my scepticism, but until you can show us these call logs and until they can be seen to corroborate your statements then I just can't believe they exist on your say so alone, particularly given some of your other conclusions and what they have been based on.
-
An answer machine proves nothing.
In fact, it was me who introduced the Answer Machine theory, and THAT was to suggest how he MIGHT have 'answered' his own call to himself in case BT could tell if the call made and/or completed (answered).
If by some miracle, a tape turned on with Nevil's voice on it saying "SON SON, come quick!!!", then that would definitely help him, even thought it wouldn't prove his innocence.
If such a tape existed, I would be 95% sure his appeal would be successful.
-
An answer machine proves nothing.
In fact, it was me who introduced the Answer Machine theory, and THAT was to suggest how he MIGHT have 'answered' his own call to himself in case BT could tell if the call made and/or completed (answered).
If by some miracle, a tape turned on with Nevil's voice on it saying "SON SON, come quick!!!", then that would definitely help him, even thought it wouldn't prove his innocence.
If such a tape existed, I would be 95% sure his appeal would be successful.
... EP took possession of the answer phone from JB's cottage, as part of the process to prove or disprove that a call was made from Whf to JB's cottage - when taken into consideration along with other material. For this reason, seizure of the answer phone machine cannot be easily be disgarded...
-
An answer machine proves nothing.
In fact, it was me who introduced the Answer Machine theory, and THAT was to suggest how he MIGHT have 'answered' his own call to himself in case BT could tell if the call made and/or completed (answered).
If by some miracle, a tape turned on with Nevil's voice on it saying "SON SON, come quick!!!", then that would definitely help him, even thought it wouldn't prove his innocence.
If such a tape existed, I would be 95% sure his appeal would be successful.
... EP took possession of the answer phone from JB's cottage, as part of the process to prove or disprove that a call was made from Whf to JB's cottage - when taken into consideration along with other material. For this reason, seizure of the answer phone machine cannot be easily be disgarded...
All it signifies to me is:
1) They grabbed all the could
or
2) They specifically considered how it could be important (either as a tool for a fake alibi, or to support his claim of a call.
Given the highly primitive nature of answering machines at that time, IF he was guilty, he'd have destroyed the tape that incriminated him.
If he was innocent, then he'd have mentioned and used the tape as evidence
-
There was no evidence that JB had tampered with, cleaned or destroyed any audio tape connected with or associated to the answer phone machine that EP seized from his cottage - if such evidence existed the prosecution would surely have relied upon it at the time of the trial...
But they did not...
EP seized this answer machine, as part of their investigation, at a time when they almost certainly had gathered sufficient intelligence to believe that the answer phone machine might hold some vital clue or other to help the police establish what had actually taken place...
I am convinced that EP obtaioned the itemized billing for the phone account at whf, and they they discovered that there was two calls made from the scene during the early hours of 7th August 1985...
(1) - a call made to Jeremy's cottage at 3:15am
(2) - a call made to the police at 3:16am
What is more, I believe that EP knew how long each call had lasted - with this information in their possession, I believe they seized the answer phone machine from Jeremy's cottage, and checked to see if there was any evidence on the audio tapes that matched the duration of the call that was made from whf at 3:15am. If they had found any evidence of this, they would almost certainly have used it at the trial to suggest to the jury that Bamber had been at the scene and that he had called his cottage from whf, but evidence was recorded on his answer machine, etc...
The fact that they found no such evidence, led the police to conclude that Bamber must have hired a hit man, who called him from the scene, once the murders had been finalized - but inquiries in this direction, also proved fruitless...
I think there are very strong grounds for believing that there were or may have been two calls made from whf that morning, one timed at 3:15am, made to Jeremy's cottage, and the other, timed at 3:16am, made to the police...
The clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, and this can be relied upon to show that the first message recorded at the police station, related to a call from Ralph Bamber, timed at 3:26am, but the real time was 3:16am...
The next call, made by Jeremy to the police was timed as, 3:36am, but because the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, the real time was 3:26am...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is other information available to back this up:-
None more significant, than a reference in a Police Major Incident Project document, which states that at 03:45am, PC Lowe had seen an unidentified male suspect at WHF?
How could PC Myall have seen this unidentified male suspect at 3:45am, if the police car he arrived at to the scene, did not officially arrive, there until 3:48am? This problem is solved by reference to the fact that the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, so although the record contained in / on message 3:26am, states that patrol car, CA07 was dispatched to the scene at 3:35am, and it arrived there at 3:48am, the actual time it was deployed to the scene was at 3:25am, arriving at the scene at 3:38am - allowing PC Myall to make the sighting of the unidentified male at the scene (inside the bedroom window of the farmhouse when he was in the grounds along with PS Bews, and JB)...
JB officially arrived at the scene, at 3:52am, but because the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, the actual time JB arrived at the scene was at 3:42am...
Another area of contention relating to the timing of the telephone calls, involves the call JB made to JM, which was originally said to have taken place at about 3:30am, but which was later displaced to the earlier occasion of about 3:15am...
I think the timings were all altered because of the clock in the control room being ten minutes fast, and later evidence to show that the clock in the bedsit where JM was living being about 15 minutes fast...
Once you know all these factors, including for the possibility that EP obtained billing details for the phone at whf, and that there was / is evidence that two calls were made from whf, one timed at 3:15am, made to JB's cottage, and the second one, at 3:16am, to the police, the rest just falls into place, including the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone...
-------------------------------------------------------
By the time of the trial, (October 1986) EP were relying upon the fact that the clock in the control room, was ten minutes fast, and the two different phone message logs, (3:26am and 3:36am) were relied upon to try and suggest that the content referred to the same call, but they were not - a fact provable once the billing details were disclosed showing that there had been two calls made from whf, one at 3:15am, and the other at 3:16am...
Details of the first call timed at 3:26am, were photocopied onto the reverse of another original log which had been compiled from information received from the scene timed at 4:02am...
This was a crucial forgery designed to join both calls together, (3:26am and 3:36am) as being one and the same - exposed, because of the fact that the original details as per the 3:26am, phone call from Ralph Bamber, were not disclosed, and to this day, despite some 25 years having elapsed, the original version of these notes is missing, has been destroyed or EP and th DPP / CPS, refuse to disclose it, under pii...
-
Answer machine is integral part of case, proving he did not make call to himself, taking into account, the other evidence linked to this matter...
No, it proves nothing because it has not been established that call even took place.
If you forgive my scepticism, but until you can show us these call logs and until they can be seen to corroborate your statements then I just can't believe they exist on your say so alone, particularly given some of your other conclusions and what they have been based on.
------------------------
I question some of your conclusions as well....
-
... Unless, RB made an earlier call, before JB to the police - and if, MB did not make the notes up for the 3.26am log, until later (I do not think the photocopy of the 3.26am phone message that was copied on the reverse of the 4.02am log was genuinely written up, as claimed, I think its been modified to try and make it fit the prosecutions case) - in other words, it doesn't mean what the prosecution suggest it means at all, its a forgery...
We've been here before though haven't we?
In this alleged call from Nevill to JB, Nevill didn't tell JB that he had already called the police, as stated by JB. If Nevill had already called the police he would not withold that information during the call to JB.
The copy of one call log on the back of another was just that, a photocopy, given out at trial. The originals were not on the reverse sides of a single piece of paper.
What do you base your accusation that a document has been modified or forged, and when did this allegedly take place?
-------------------
I think you got mixed up a little, Ralph called Jeremy first, and then Ralph called the police...
-
I suppose it's too much to hope that BT still hold phone records from 25 years ago? :)
-
I suppose it's too much to hope that BT still hold phone records from 25 years ago? :)
---------------------------------
EP already must have them, because they obtained the others from 1984 to July 1985...
-
... Unless, RB made an earlier call, before JB to the police - and if, MB did not make the notes up for the 3.26am log, until later (I do not think the photocopy of the 3.26am phone message that was copied on the reverse of the 4.02am log was genuinely written up, as claimed, I think its been modified to try and make it fit the prosecutions case) - in other words, it doesn't mean what the prosecution suggest it means at all, its a forgery...
We've been here before though haven't we?
In this alleged call from Nevill to JB, Nevill didn't tell JB that he had already called the police, as stated by JB. If Nevill had already called the police he would not withold that information during the call to JB.
The copy of one call log on the back of another was just that, a photocopy, given out at trial. The originals were not on the reverse sides of a single piece of paper.
What do you base your accusation that a document has been modified or forged, and when did this allegedly take place?
How do you know that for certain?
-
I suppose it's too much to hope that BT still hold phone records from 25 years ago? :)
---------------------------------
EP already must have them, because they obtained the others from 1984 to July 1985...
I was rather thinking of Bamber's defence team being able to obtain a copy directly from BT.
-
... Unless, RB made an earlier call, before JB to the police - and if, MB did not make the notes up for the 3.26am log, until later (I do not think the photocopy of the 3.26am phone message that was copied on the reverse of the 4.02am log was genuinely written up, as claimed, I think its been modified to try and make it fit the prosecutions case) - in other words, it doesn't mean what the prosecution suggest it means at all, its a forgery...
We've been here before though haven't we?
In this alleged call from Nevill to JB, Nevill didn't tell JB that he had already called the police, as stated by JB. If Nevill had already called the police he would not withold that information during the call to JB.
The copy of one call log on the back of another was just that, a photocopy, given out at trial. The originals were not on the reverse sides of a single piece of paper.
What do you base your accusation that a document has been modified or forged, and when did this allegedly take place?
How do you know that for certain?
-------------------------------------
It's a forgery because one side of the document is an original, relating to a different log from the scene starting at 4:02am, whilst on the reverse side, is a photocopy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am - you can't have an original on one side and a copy on the other, both sides should be original contents...
-
You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.
-
Look, if Malcolm Bonnet's log was photocopied onto the other side of another original log, that means the original log must have been put into the paper-in compartment of the copier, and Malcolm Bonnet's log must have put onto the glass sheet on the top of the copier. Then the copy button would be pressed, and the Bonnet log would appear as a copy on the other side of the other original log.
Can anyone tell me why someone would do that?
-
You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.
--------------------------------
The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?
The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...
Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...
-
Look, if Malcolm Bonnet's log was photocopied onto the other side of another original log, that means the original log must have been put into the paper-in compartment of the copier, and Malcolm Bonnet's log must have put onto the glass sheet on the top of the copier. Then the copy button would be pressed, and the Bonnet log would appear as a copy on the other side of the other original log.
Can anyone tell me why someone would do that?
-----------------------
Well, first of all, what you are saying is not strictly true, you could place a copy onto the glass of the photocopier and copy that, so I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I think your just speculating - and if somebody went to the trouble of copying an original in the circumstances you have explained, why not simply produce the original, and let the prosecutor know that it is being made an official exhibit? Unless of course, there was some information on the reverse side of the original that was being copied, that somebody did not want anyone to see...
I wonder what was on the reverse of the original document - more information confirming that a call was made by Ralph Bamber ten minutes or so before the one received from the son, I should think?
Why else not disclose or make the original available?
-
Didnt JB say in a letter to you lately , he now know's which document's are forged ? He mentioned something about the photocopier i think , he then went on to say he has only just told the CCRC .
-
You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.
--------------------------------
The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?
The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...
Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...
Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html
-
See what I mean?
However neither the police or the prosecution intended page one of the Wireless Message Log to be seen by the defence, the judge or the jury and according to the 2004 Witness Statements none of them did see it. The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not. Quite why this Wireless Message Log appears on the reverse of an unrelated document and not on the proper form like the other fourteen pages of the Wireless Message Log is yet another unexplained anomaly in this case.
-
You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.
--------------------------------
The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?
The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...
Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...
Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html
-----------------------
I was not the author of that posting...
-
You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.
--------------------------------
The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?
The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...
Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...
Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html
-----------------------
I was not the author of that posting...
I know that, but the author appears to have information about that document, so how come you and that person are saying different things?
-
Phone call Diagram:-
-
You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.
--------------------------------
The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?
The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...
Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...
Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html
-----------------------
I was not the author of that posting...
I know that, but the author appears to have information about that document, so how come you and that person are saying different things?
-----------------------
That person is describing what the situation was at the time of the trial, whereas I am describing what took place after the trial, to make it look like it was all part of the same document at the time of the trial...
-
You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.
--------------------------------
The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?
The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...
Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...
Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html
-----------------------
I was not the author of that posting...
I know that, but the author appears to have information about that document, so how come you and that person are saying different things?
-----------------------
That person is describing what the situation was at the time of the trial, whereas I am describing what took place after the trial, to make it look like it was all part of the same document at the time of the trial...
It seems to me that the person who wrote that explanation is saying that Malcolm Bonnet wrote his log of what happened at the scene on the reverse side of his phone log. Is that a correct interpretation?
-
You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.
--------------------------------
The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?
The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...
Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...
Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html
-----------------------
I was not the author of that posting...
I know that, but the author appears to have information about that document, so how come you and that person are saying different things?
-----------------------
That person is describing what the situation was at the time of the trial, whereas I am describing what took place after the trial, to make it look like it was all part of the same document at the time of the trial...
It seems to me that the person who wrote that explanation is saying that Malcolm Bonnet wrote his log of what happened at the scene on the reverse side of his phone log. Is that a correct interpretation?
....
No, I don't think it is saying that, I think it is saying that the details were copied onto the reverse of another log...
You need to speak to the author of that post and ask that person what they are saying and what they mean by what they are saying in that post...
-
You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.
--------------------------------
The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?
The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...
Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...
Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html
-----------------------
I was not the author of that posting...
I know that, but the author appears to have information about that document, so how come you and that person are saying different things?
-----------------------
That person is describing what the situation was at the time of the trial, whereas I am describing what took place after the trial, to make it look like it was all part of the same document at the time of the trial...
It seems to me that the person who wrote that explanation is saying that Malcolm Bonnet wrote his log of what happened at the scene on the reverse side of his phone log. Is that a correct interpretation?
....
No, I don't think it is saying that, I think it is saying that the details were copied onto the reverse of another log...
Let's look at it again.
However neither the police or the prosecution intended page one of the Wireless Message Log to be seen by the defence, the judge or the jury and according to the 2004 Witness Statements none of them did see it. The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not. Quite why this Wireless Message Log appears on the reverse of an unrelated document and not on the proper form like the other fourteen pages of the Wireless Message Log is yet another unexplained anomaly in this case.
He's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the phone call was in court and it was copied and handed out to everyone, but that the first page of the log of the scene was not - in my opinion.
-
They moved all the timings of the phone calls around, to make it appear as though Jeremy had been lying about the phone call he received from his father at whf, and the call he made to the police, and the call he made to his girlfriend...
EP know that a call was made from the scene to JB's cottage, and they know that there was someone alive inside whf at 3:45am, described by PC Myall as an unidentified male, who was suspect number one, that EP tried to identify as the hitman......
-
They moved all the timings of the phone calls around, to make it appear as though Jeremy had been lying about the phone call he received from his father at whf, and the call he made to the police, and the call he made to his girlfriend...
EP know that a call was made from the scene to JB's cottage, and they know that there was someone alive inside whf at 3:45am, described by PC Myall as an unidentified male, who was suspect number one, that EP tried to identify as the hitman......
In your opinion ...
-
You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.
--------------------------------
The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?
The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...
Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...
Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html
-----------------------
I was not the author of that posting...
I know that, but the author appears to have information about that document, so how come you and that person are saying different things?
-----------------------
That person is describing what the situation was at the time of the trial, whereas I am describing what took place after the trial, to make it look like it was all part of the same document at the time of the trial...
It seems to me that the person who wrote that explanation is saying that Malcolm Bonnet wrote his log of what happened at the scene on the reverse side of his phone log. Is that a correct interpretation?
....
No, I don't think it is saying that, I think it is saying that the details were copied onto the reverse of another log...
Let's look at it again.
However neither the police or the prosecution intended page one of the Wireless Message Log to be seen by the defence, the judge or the jury and according to the 2004 Witness Statements none of them did see it. The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not. Quite why this Wireless Message Log appears on the reverse of an unrelated document and not on the proper form like the other fourteen pages of the Wireless Message Log is yet another unexplained anomaly in this case.
He's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the phone call was in court and it was copied and handed out to everyone, but that the first page of the log of the scene was not - in my opinion.
----------------------
I don't think the author of that post has explained the situation accurately, enough for me to comment upon...
-
They moved all the timings of the phone calls around, to make it appear as though Jeremy had been lying about the phone call he received from his father at whf, and the call he made to the police, and the call he made to his girlfriend...
EP know that a call was made from the scene to JB's cottage, and they know that there was someone alive inside whf at 3:45am, described by PC Myall as an unidentified male, who was suspect number one, that EP tried to identify as the hitman......
In your opinion ...
---------------------
and supported by an entry in the major incident project document which was produced by EP...
entry (1) 03:45am, PC Myall sees unidentified male at whf
-
... Unless, RB made an earlier call, before JB to the police - and if, MB did not make the notes up for the 3.26am log, until later (I do not think the photocopy of the 3.26am phone message that was copied on the reverse of the 4.02am log was genuinely written up, as claimed, I think its been modified to try and make it fit the prosecutions case) - in other words, it doesn't mean what the prosecution suggest it means at all, its a forgery...
We've been here before though haven't we?
In this alleged call from Nevill to JB, Nevill didn't tell JB that he had already called the police, as stated by JB. If Nevill had already called the police he would not withold that information during the call to JB.
The copy of one call log on the back of another was just that, a photocopy, given out at trial. The originals were not on the reverse sides of a single piece of paper.
What do you base your accusation that a document has been modified or forged, and when did this allegedly take place?
How do you know that for certain?
-------------------------------------
It's a forgery because one side of the document is an original, relating to a different log from the scene starting at 4:02am, whilst on the reverse side, is a photocopy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am - you can't have an original on one side and a copy on the other, both sides should be original contents...
Let's be clear about what you're saying here. You're saying that the document which contained these words was in court for everyone to see?
05.25 Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm
-
You can't have 12 originals handed to each jury member. There was not an original document with another document copied on its reverse.
--------------------------------
The truth is there was nothing on the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene - but a copy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, was photocopied onto the reverse of the former, and stamped by the official crown court stamp as though both logs had been disclosed but we now know that even the prosecution confirm that they knew nothing about the 3:26am, log, at the time of the trial - so, where does that leave your theory?
The jury never got to see the photocopy details of the 3:26am, phone message log details, nobody did, it was not an official exhibit - you need an original document to make it an exhibit at crown court, and since no original was disclosed or produced, a photocopy would not suffice without there having been legal argument...
Phone log details timed at 3:26am, amount to a forgery if they were copied onto the reverse of another log, and someone is / was claiming the copy to be an original, when it clearly was / is not...
Would you like to comment on this thread, which was moved here from the jeremybamber.com site? It has a different version to yours.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html
-----------------------
I was not the author of that posting...
I know that, but the author appears to have information about that document, so how come you and that person are saying different things?
-----------------------
That person is describing what the situation was at the time of the trial, whereas I am describing what took place after the trial, to make it look like it was all part of the same document at the time of the trial...
It seems to me that the person who wrote that explanation is saying that Malcolm Bonnet wrote his log of what happened at the scene on the reverse side of his phone log. Is that a correct interpretation?
....
No, I don't think it is saying that, I think it is saying that the details were copied onto the reverse of another log...
Let's look at it again.
However neither the police or the prosecution intended page one of the Wireless Message Log to be seen by the defence, the judge or the jury and according to the 2004 Witness Statements none of them did see it. The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not. Quite why this Wireless Message Log appears on the reverse of an unrelated document and not on the proper form like the other fourteen pages of the Wireless Message Log is yet another unexplained anomaly in this case.
He's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the phone call was in court and it was copied and handed out to everyone, but that the first page of the log of the scene was not - in my opinion.
----------------------------
I think this post by this other person, is trying to make reference to the fact that the contents of the 4:02 log from the scene, does not include the original comments which were passed from the scene by PC Myall, when Myall, Bews and Bamber, returned to the patrol car (CA07) which was parked up in Pages lane, after they had returned there from seeing the figure at the bedroom window - there is nothing in that log about requesting the firearms officers to be deployed, and the reasons for the firearms officers needing to be deployed...
A suggestion that those contents are a forgery...
in my opinion...
-
... Unless, RB made an earlier call, before JB to the police - and if, MB did not make the notes up for the 3.26am log, until later (I do not think the photocopy of the 3.26am phone message that was copied on the reverse of the 4.02am log was genuinely written up, as claimed, I think its been modified to try and make it fit the prosecutions case) - in other words, it doesn't mean what the prosecution suggest it means at all, its a forgery...
We've been here before though haven't we?
In this alleged call from Nevill to JB, Nevill didn't tell JB that he had already called the police, as stated by JB. If Nevill had already called the police he would not withold that information during the call to JB.
The copy of one call log on the back of another was just that, a photocopy, given out at trial. The originals were not on the reverse sides of a single piece of paper.
What do you base your accusation that a document has been modified or forged, and when did this allegedly take place?
How do you know that for certain?
-------------------------------------
It's a forgery because one side of the document is an original, relating to a different log from the scene starting at 4:02am, whilst on the reverse side, is a photocopy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am - you can't have an original on one side and a copy on the other, both sides should be original contents...
Let's be clear about what you're saying here. You're saying that the document which contained these words was in court for everyone to see?
05.25 Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm
--------------
Are you attributing comments made by others, to me?
-
Look, if Malcolm Bonnet's log was photocopied onto the other side of another original log, that means the original log must have been put into the paper-in compartment of the copier, and Malcolm Bonnet's log must have put onto the glass sheet on the top of the copier. Then the copy button would be pressed, and the Bonnet log would appear as a copy on the other side of the other original log.
Can anyone tell me why someone would do that?
-----------------------
Well, first of all, what you are saying is not strictly true, you could place a copy onto the glass of the photocopier and copy that, so I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I think your just speculating - and if somebody went to the trouble of copying an original in the circumstances you have explained, why not simply produce the original, and let the prosecutor know that it is being made an official exhibit? Unless of course, there was some information on the reverse side of the original that was being copied, that somebody did not want anyone to see...
I wonder what was on the reverse of the original document - more information confirming that a call was made by Ralph Bamber ten minutes or so before the one received from the son, I should think?
Why else not disclose or make the original available?
No. You said this.
It's a forgery because one side of the document is an original, relating to a different log from the scene starting at 4:02am, whilst on the reverse side, is a photocopy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am - you can't have an original on one side and a copy on the other, both sides should be original contents...
So you're saying that the original of the police log of the scene had a photocopy of the phone log on the other side. In order for that to happen you'd have to feed the original through the copier. Nobody would do that.
-
Mike are you aware of what document's JB thinks were forged or altered now ?
-
... Unless, RB made an earlier call, before JB to the police - and if, MB did not make the notes up for the 3.26am log, until later (I do not think the photocopy of the 3.26am phone message that was copied on the reverse of the 4.02am log was genuinely written up, as claimed, I think its been modified to try and make it fit the prosecutions case) - in other words, it doesn't mean what the prosecution suggest it means at all, its a forgery...
We've been here before though haven't we?
In this alleged call from Nevill to JB, Nevill didn't tell JB that he had already called the police, as stated by JB. If Nevill had already called the police he would not withold that information during the call to JB.
The copy of one call log on the back of another was just that, a photocopy, given out at trial. The originals were not on the reverse sides of a single piece of paper.
What do you base your accusation that a document has been modified or forged, and when did this allegedly take place?
How do you know that for certain?
-------------------------------------
It's a forgery because one side of the document is an original, relating to a different log from the scene starting at 4:02am, whilst on the reverse side, is a photocopy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am - you can't have an original on one side and a copy on the other, both sides should be original contents...
Let's be clear about what you're saying here. You're saying that the document which contained these words was in court for everyone to see?
05.25 Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm
--------------
Are you attributing comments made by others, to me?
No. You said this:
It's a forgery because one side of the document is an original, relating to a different log from the scene starting at 4:02am ...
The log you're referring to contained the words I just quoted, right?
-
Mike, could you please post the document which you say had Malcolm Bonnet's log of the phone call copied onto the back of it?
-
Mike are you aware of what document's JB thinks were forged or altered now ?
.................
Yes, of course...
phone log details timed at 3:26am, were not disclosed as an exhibit at the time of the trial, and the first page of the log from the scene, has vital omissions about the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window which caused the police to request from the scene that the firearms team be deployed to the scene...
-
Mike, are you saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was copied onto the back of this original document?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=369.0;attach=1024;image)
-
... Unless, RB made an earlier call, before JB to the police - and if, MB did not make the notes up for the 3.26am log, until later (I do not think the photocopy of the 3.26am phone message that was copied on the reverse of the 4.02am log was genuinely written up, as claimed, I think its been modified to try and make it fit the prosecutions case) - in other words, it doesn't mean what the prosecution suggest it means at all, its a forgery...
We've been here before though haven't we?
In this alleged call from Nevill to JB, Nevill didn't tell JB that he had already called the police, as stated by JB. If Nevill had already called the police he would not withold that information during the call to JB.
The copy of one call log on the back of another was just that, a photocopy, given out at trial. The originals were not on the reverse sides of a single piece of paper.
What do you base your accusation that a document has been modified or forged, and when did this allegedly take place?
How do you know that for certain?
-------------------------------------
It's a forgery because one side of the document is an original, relating to a different log from the scene starting at 4:02am, whilst on the reverse side, is a photocopy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am - you can't have an original on one side and a copy on the other, both sides should be original contents...
Let's be clear about what you're saying here. You're saying that the document which contained these words was in court for everyone to see?
05.25 Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm
--------------
Are you attributing comments made by others, to me?
No. You said this:
It's a forgery because one side of the document is an original, relating to a different log from the scene starting at 4:02am ...
The log you're referring to contained the words I just quoted, right?
-------------------------
But the details on that log from the scene were not the original details that should have been recorded in that log, because there is no mention about what PC Myall / PS Bews and Jeremy all saw at the bedroom window, details of which were relayed by police radio from CA07...
-
Mike, are you saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was copied onto the back of this original document?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=369.0;attach=1024;image)
----------------
no...
-
But the details on that log from the scene were not the original details that should have been recorded in that log, because there is no mention about what PC Myall / PS Bews and Jeremy all saw at the bedroom window, details of which were relayed by police radio from CA07...
But are you saying that document was in court? If so, then why did the defence not mention the bit about the firearms team being in conversation with someone from inside the farm?
-
In my opinion, that log I just posted was written by Malcolm Bonnet who was in the information room.
-
Mike, are you saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was copied onto the back of this original document?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=369.0;attach=1024;image)
----------------
no...
Well that's the log which starts at 4.02, and that's what you referred to earlier.
-
I am not saying that at all - I am saying that there was an original document produced at the time of the trial which gave details about what PC Myall said to the control, room / incident room, via the radio of CA07, that included details of what they had just been observing at the bedroom window, and the request for firearms officers to be sent to the scene immediately because they had just seen seen someone who was possibly armed and it could turn into a siege situation...
You will note that there does not appear any official crown court stamp anywhere on this document...
-
It's a forgery because one side of the document is an original, relating to a different log from the scene starting at 4:02am, whilst on the reverse side, is a photocopy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am - you can't have an original on one side and a copy on the other, both sides should be original contents...
The document I just posted starts at 4.02 ...
-
I am not saying that at all - I am saying that there was an original document produced at the time of the trial which gave details about what PC Myall said to the control, room / incident room, via the radio of CA07, that included details of what they had just been observing at the bedroom window, and the request for firearms officers to be sent to the scene immediately because they had just seen seen someone who was possibly armed and it could turn into a siege situation...
You will note that there does not appear any official crown court stamp anywhere on this document...
It's a forgery because one side of the document is an original, relating to a different log from the scene starting at 4:02am, whilst on the reverse side, is a photocopy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am - you can't have an original on one side and a copy on the other, both sides should be original contents...
Your words ...
-
Mike, are you saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was copied onto the back of this original document?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=369.0;attach=1024;image)
----------------
no...
-----------------------
Well that's the log which starts at 4.02, and that's what you referred to earlier.
------------------------------
Yes, log that was actually produced at the trial started at 4:02am, but its contents were different to those posted, above...
This leads me to believe that the person who posted that document you are referring to (above) was talking about the differences between the original log (4:02am) and the one you posted?
-
Please post the document on the reverse of which Malcolm Bonnet's phone log was allegedly photocopied ...
Thanks.
-
The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not.
To me, that's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was distributed to everyone in court? Have I misunderstood?
-
I am not saying that at all - I am saying that there was an original document produced at the time of the trial which gave details about what PC Myall said to the control, room / incident room, via the radio of CA07, that included details of what they had just been observing at the bedroom window, and the request for firearms officers to be sent to the scene immediately because they had just seen seen someone who was possibly armed and it could turn into a siege situation...
You will note that there does not appear any official crown court stamp anywhere on this document...
It's a forgery because one side of the document is an original, relating to a different log from the scene starting at 4:02am, whilst on the reverse side, is a photocopy of the phone message log timed at 3:26am - you can't have an original on one side and a copy on the other, both sides should be original contents...
Your words ...
---------------------
Yes, by suggesting that the details of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, were copied onto the reverse of the other log (4:02am) from the scene, I am describing it as a forgery, because that is what it is - a copy on one side and original handwritten details on the other. For the purposes of clarity, the handwriting on both sides would need to be original for the document not to be a forgery...
If one side of the document has been forged, because someone has copied something onto it, it automatically makes the whole document a forgery because someone has tried to present it as an original document, when it is obviously not...
Are you trying to suggest that it doesn't matter that one side is a forgery, the other side is an original which stands on its own merits?
I did not forge that document, and I did not make the posts that someone else did and which you are trying to pin on me...
You have asked me about these discrepancies and I have given you my answer as best I can...
-
The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not.
To me, that's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was distributed to everyone in court? Have I misunderstood?
---------------------------
After studying its contents I do not think it is cl;ear what the person who posted those comments is saying, it is certainly not what I would say, and I hold a different view to those expressed in that account...
-
Yes, by suggesting that the details of the phone message log timed at 3:26am, were copied onto the reverse of the other log (4:02am) from the scene, I am describing it as a forgery, because that is what it is - a copy on one side and original handwritten details on the other. For the purposes of clarity, the handwriting on both sides would need to be original for the document not to be a forgery...
If one side of the document has been forged, because someone has copied something onto it, it automatically makes the whole document a forgery because someone has tried to present it as an original document, when it is obviously not...
Are you trying to suggest that it doesn't matter that one side is a forgery, the other side is an original which stands on its own merits?
I did not forge that document, and I did not make the posts that someone else did and which you are trying to pin on me...
You have asked me about these discrepancies and I have given you my answer as best I can...
You're describing what as a forgery? Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West, or the police log of the scene which starts at 4.02? It's not clear to me what you're saying.
-
Oh and I have NEVER tried to pin someone else's remarks on you Mike, so I wish you'd stop saying that.
I'm simply saying that you are claiming the opposite of what someone else has claimed, and both of you appear to have "inside" knowledge about these documents. You can't both be right obviously because you're saying different things.
-
Please post the document on the reverse of which Malcolm Bonnet's phone log was allegedly photocopied ...
Thanks.
--------------------------
I think that is the point that the person who made the post you are trying to pin to me, was trying to make - police altered its contents...
in my opinion...
-
Please post the document on the reverse of which Malcolm Bonnet's phone log was allegedly photocopied ...
Thanks.
--------------------------
I think that is the point that the person who made the post you are trying to pin to me, was trying to make - police altered its contents...
in my opinion...
Please pay attention.
I HAVE NEVER TRIED TO PIN THAT POST ON YOU.
I hope that's clear.
Can't you just explain what you're talking about in a simpler way? Please just post the document which you think was forged!
-
In fact, can anyone else explain what on earth Mike is going on about?
-
Oh and I have NEVER tried to pin someone else's remarks on you Mike, so I wish you'd stop saying that.
I'm simply saying that you are claiming the opposite of what someone else has claimed, and both of you appear to have "inside" knowledge about these documents. You can't both be right obviously because you're saying different things.
---------------------------
Of course both of us can be right - the person who was responsible for making that post is obviously talking about a different feature than the one I have referred to (although inextricably linked)...
How do you think the firearms team got deployed to the scene?
You show me in the log you have just posted, anywhere that gives the police a good reason to deploy the forearms team to the scene as a result of the occupants of CA07 contacting the incident room, at 4:02am?
There's nothing there at all in that version of the log, so there must have been a different log...
-
Please post the document on the reverse of which Malcolm Bonnet's phone log was allegedly photocopied ...
Thanks.
--------------------------
I think that is the point that the person who made the post you are trying to pin to me, was trying to make - police altered its contents...
in my opinion...
Please pay attention.
I HAVE NEVER TRIED TO PIN THAT POST ON YOU.
I hope that's clear.
Can't you just explain what you're talking about in a simpler way? Please just post the document which you think was forged!
--------------------------
This document is a forgery:-
-
The above document has only recently come to light and could not have been an exhibit at Jeremy's trial in 1986...
-
Oh and I have NEVER tried to pin someone else's remarks on you Mike, so I wish you'd stop saying that.
I'm simply saying that you are claiming the opposite of what someone else has claimed, and both of you appear to have "inside" knowledge about these documents. You can't both be right obviously because you're saying different things.
---------------------------
Of course both of us can be right - the person who was responsible for making that post is obviously talking about a different feature than the one I have referred to (although inextricably linked)...
How do you think the firearms team got deployed to the scene?
You show me in the log you have just posted, anywhere that gives the police a good reason to deploy the forearms team to the scene as a result of the occupants of CA07 contacting the incident room, at 4:02am?
There's nothing there at all in that version of the log, so there must have been a different log...
You're not saying the same thing at all!
Look, as far as I'm concerned, the log which Malcolm Bonnet of the call from PC West was in court, and the log which I just posted was also written by Malcolm Bonnet.
Now I'm not wasting any more time on this. If you can't explain properly, how can you expect anyone to know what you're talking about? You're just speculating yet again and accusing the police of forging documents left, right, and centre with no proof whatsoever.
-
The above document has only recently come to light and could not have been an exhibit at Jeremy's trial in 1986...
I don't believe that ...
-
The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not.
To me, that's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was distributed to everyone in court? Have I misunderstood?
-------------------------------
You are getting mixed up, it looks like the person who posted those comments, was referring to the reverse side details, on the back of the wireless message log not being posted / distributed...
-
Oh and I have NEVER tried to pin someone else's remarks on you Mike, so I wish you'd stop saying that.
I'm simply saying that you are claiming the opposite of what someone else has claimed, and both of you appear to have "inside" knowledge about these documents. You can't both be right obviously because you're saying different things.
---------------------------
Of course both of us can be right - the person who was responsible for making that post is obviously talking about a different feature than the one I have referred to (although inextricably linked)...
How do you think the firearms team got deployed to the scene?
You show me in the log you have just posted, anywhere that gives the police a good reason to deploy the forearms team to the scene as a result of the occupants of CA07 contacting the incident room, at 4:02am?
There's nothing there at all in that version of the log, so there must have been a different log...
You're not saying the same thing at all!
Look, as far as I'm concerned, the log which Malcolm Bonnet of the call from PC West was in court, and the log which I just posted was also written by Malcolm Bonnet.
Now I'm not wasting any more time on this. If you can't explain properly, how can you expect anyone to know what you're talking about? You're just speculating yet again and accusing the police of forging documents left, right, and centre with no proof whatsoever.
----------------------
The only person speculating is you...
-
The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not.
To me, that's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was distributed to everyone in court? Have I misunderstood?
-------------------------------
You are getting mixed up, it looks like the person who posted those comments, was referring to the reverse side details, on the back of the wireless message log not being posted...
It's not me getting mixed up, it's you and also whoever wrote that.
-
Now I've heard everything. So Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was a forgery according to Mike.
>:(
-
The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not.
To me, that's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was distributed to everyone in court? Have I misunderstood?
-------------------------------
You are getting mixed up, it looks like the person who posted those comments, was referring to the reverse side details, on the back of the wireless message log not being posted...
It's not me getting mixed up, it's you and also whoever wrote that.
.......................
I can assure you that I am not getting mixed up, and I cannot comment for the other person who posted those details - you are trying to pin what someone else has had to say on me as though I have said it, which is totally unfair and out of order...
Contact that person and question that person about those matters that that person wrote about...
My views, and my opinions are my own, I don't need anyone else to think or speak for me...
-
The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not.
To me, that's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was distributed to everyone in court? Have I misunderstood?
-------------------------------
You are getting mixed up, it looks like the person who posted those comments, was referring to the reverse side details, on the back of the wireless message log not being posted...
It's not me getting mixed up, it's you and also whoever wrote that.
.......................
I can assure you that I am not getting mixed up, and I cannot comment for the other person who posted those details - you are trying to pin what someone else has had to say on me as though I have said it, which is totally unfair and out of order...
Contact that person and question that person about those matters that that person wrote about...
My views, and my opinions are my own, I don't need anyone else to think or speak for me...
This is ridiculous. You have relied on that log of the call from PC West to Malcolm Bonnet as "proof" that Nevill called the police. You've relied on it over and over again, and now you say it's a forgery! You've moved the goal posts yet again!
-
It's toe to toe on here tonight. Smashing entertainment. :D
-
Now I've heard everything. So Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was a forgery according to Mike.
>:(
------------------------------
Lets put things into perspective - phone message log (3:26am) which provides details of Ralph Bambers call to the police, was not disclosed to the jury at the time of the trial, it ended up being photocopied onto the reverse after the trial, onto the reverse of the original (4:02am) log from the scene. The log which has recently been posted by you, purports to be a copy of the original log from the scene details (4:02am) but there are omissions which make it clear that the details must have been re-written...
If the phone message log (3:26am) details are recorded on the reverse of the log from the scene (4:02am) the contents on both sides of that document are a forgery, in my opinion - especially if it is being suggested that the phone log details timed at 3:26am, refer or relate to the call made to the police by Jeremy...
-
The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not.
To me, that's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was distributed to everyone in court? Have I misunderstood?
-------------------------------
You are getting mixed up, it looks like the person who posted those comments, was referring to the reverse side details, on the back of the wireless message log not being posted...
It's not me getting mixed up, it's you and also whoever wrote that.
.......................
I can assure you that I am not getting mixed up, and I cannot comment for the other person who posted those details - you are trying to pin what someone else has had to say on me as though I have said it, which is totally unfair and out of order...
Contact that person and question that person about those matters that that person wrote about...
My views, and my opinions are my own, I don't need anyone else to think or speak for me...
This is ridiculous. You have relied on that log of the call from PC West to Malcolm Bonnet as "proof" that Nevill called the police. You've relied on it over and over again, and now you say it's a forgery! You've moved the goal posts yet again!
-----------------------
Hang on...
Stop speculating, I have said that if the contents of that phone log timed at 3:26am, relate to the call that was made to the police by Jeremy, I am saying that such a claim is a forgery - but if the contents relate to the call made to the police by RB, then it is not a forgery - it depends in which capacity you are trying to make the details fit? I am also saying that there has only ever been a photocopy of the phone message log contents (3:26am), and I am questioning the whereabouts of the originally version of that document?
Log (3:26am) RB - I think Ralph called the police
Log (3:26am) JB - No, I think the information contained in this is being misused to suggest something that simply did not happen...
-
Now I've heard everything. So Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was a forgery according to Mike.
>:(
------------------------------
Lets put things into perspective - phone message log (3:26am) which provides details of Ralph Bambers call to the police, was not disclosed to the jury at the time of the trial, it ended up being photocopied onto the reverse after the trial, onto the reverse of the original (4:02am) log from the scene. The log which has recently been posted by you, purports to be a copy of the original log from the scene details (4:02am) but there are omissions which make it clear that the details must have been re-written...
If the phone message log (3:26am) details are recorded on the reverse of the log from the scene (4:02am) the contents on both sides of that document are a forgery, in my opinion - especially if it is being suggested that the phone log details timed at 3:26am, refer or relate to the call made to the police by Jeremy...
It's you who is claiming that Malcolm Bonnet's log of PC West's call relates to a call from Jeremy, not me. Now you're claiming it's a forgery, so your whole claim that Nevill called the police is dead in the water ....
As for your claim that the log which I posted which starts at 4.02 is also a forgery, well please post the real document, otherwise your claim cannot be verified.
-
The only reason it came to be in court at all was because it had been written or re-written onto the back of the Essex Police Telephone Communication Log. This document was photocopied and distributed to everyone in court but the reverse side containing the information from a page of the Wireless Message Log was not.
To me, that's saying that Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call from PC West was distributed to everyone in court? Have I misunderstood?
-------------------------------
You are getting mixed up, it looks like the person who posted those comments, was referring to the reverse side details, on the back of the wireless message log not being posted...
It's not me getting mixed up, it's you and also whoever wrote that.
.......................
I can assure you that I am not getting mixed up, and I cannot comment for the other person who posted those details - you are trying to pin what someone else has had to say on me as though I have said it, which is totally unfair and out of order...
Contact that person and question that person about those matters that that person wrote about...
My views, and my opinions are my own, I don't need anyone else to think or speak for me...
This is ridiculous. You have relied on that log of the call from PC West to Malcolm Bonnet as "proof" that Nevill called the police. You've relied on it over and over again, and now you say it's a forgery! You've moved the goal posts yet again!
-----------------------
Hang on...
Stop speculating, I have said that if the contents of that phone log timed at 3:26am, relate to the call that was made to the police by Jeremy, I am saying that such a claim is a forgery - but if the contents relate to the call made to the police by RB, then it is not a forgery - it depends in which capacity you are trying to make the details fit? I am also saying that there has only ever been a photocopy of the phone message log contents (3:26am), and I am questioning the whereabouts of the originally version of that document?
Log (3:26am) RB - I think Ralph called the police
Log (3:26am) JB - No, I think the information contained in this is being misused to suggest something that simply did not happen...
So it's a forgery when it suits you, and it's also not a forgery when it suits you.
I think you need to make up your mind.
-
One cannot have a sensible conversation with a person who claims that a document is a forgery, and at the same time claims it is not a forgery.
-
One cannot have a sensible conversation with a person who claims that a document is a forgery, and at the same time claims it is not a forgery.
-----------------------------------------
You need to get your head seen to...
(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...
(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...
(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery
(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...
-
One cannot have a sensible conversation with a person who claims that a document is a forgery, and at the same time claims it is not a forgery.
-----------------------------------------
You need to get your head seen to...
(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...
(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...
(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery
(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...
Could it not be that to document shown in court simply never had the reverse copied? and so the original had both sides, and the court copy just the one.
Not the 'reverse' side has shown up, you're saying it was 'added' to the court version
could it not have been missing from the court version?
-
Just to make life simple for us dimwits, why not show the front and rear side by side (on here) then we can discuss with a little more clarity the events therein?
-
One cannot have a sensible conversation with a person who claims that a document is a forgery, and at the same time claims it is not a forgery.
-----------------------------------------
You need to get your head seen to...
(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...
(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...
(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery
(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...
What a load of rubbish. You can't conclude that something is a forgery just because it's a photocopy - that's just nonsense.
Either it's a forgery or it isn't - make up your mind. Every time there's a document which you don't like the contents of, you say it must have been altered, or the police must have been lying. It's ridiculous. You've relied on that phone log because you think it says that Nevill rang the police, but now that some people have pointed out that it says nothing of the kind, you've introduced this new weird theory about a photocopy on the back of an original document (which you can't actually produce by the way).
There is no record that Nevill Bamber rang the police - end of.
-
One cannot have a sensible conversation with a person who claims that a document is a forgery, and at the same time claims it is not a forgery.
-----------------------------------------
You need to get your head seen to...
(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...
(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...
(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery
(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...
Could it not be that to document shown in court simply never had the reverse copied? and so the original had both sides, and the court copy just the one.
Not the 'reverse' side has shown up, you're saying it was 'added' to the court version
could it not have been missing from the court version?
-----------------------
possible...
-
Just to make life simple for us dimwits, why not show the front and rear side by side (on here) then we can discuss with a little more clarity the events therein?
And pigs might fly ...
-
So then, just to summarise:
Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call to PC West is a forgery?
The log from the scene is also a forgery?
According to Mike that is.
-
One cannot have a sensible conversation with a person who claims that a document is a forgery, and at the same time claims it is not a forgery.
-----------------------------------------
You need to get your head seen to...
(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...
(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...
(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery
(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...
What a load of rubbish. You can't conclude that something is a forgery just because it's a photocopy - that's just nonsense.
Either it's a forgery or it isn't - make up your mind. Every time there's a document which you don't like the contents of, you say it must have been altered, or the police must have been lying. It's ridiculous. You've relied on that phone log because you think it says that Nevill rang the police, but now that some people have pointed out that it says nothing of the kind, you've introduced this new weird theory about a photocopy on the back of an original document (which you can't actually produce by the way).
There is no record that Nevill Bamber rang the police - end of.
------------------------
Yes there is - Ralph Bamber did call the police, and the contents of the log (3:26am) prove and support such a view...
It is the police who have introduced the clock being wrong and the two versions of the same alleged contact timed at 3:26am (RB) and 3:36am (JB) to make it fit their case...
There is clear evidence available to prove this, there would be no reason for the police to produce two different accounts of the same phone call, containing different contents and times...
They could n't even get the contents of one statement right without having to edit it, so why would they go to all the trouble of producing two different phone logs for the same alleged call from the son?
You believe what you believe and leave me to believe what I choose to believe in...
all you do is speculate...
-
So then, just to summarise:
Malcolm Bonnet's log of the call to PC West is a forgery?
The log from the scene is also a forgery?
According to Mike that is.
-----------------------------
it depends upon which version you are talking about, and at what stage of the proceedings you are talking about...
-
One cannot have a sensible conversation with a person who claims that a document is a forgery, and at the same time claims it is not a forgery.
-----------------------------------------
You need to get your head seen to...
(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...
(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...
(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery
(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...
What a load of rubbish. You can't conclude that something is a forgery just because it's a photocopy - that's just nonsense.
Either it's a forgery or it isn't - make up your mind. Every time there's a document which you don't like the contents of, you say it must have been altered, or the police must have been lying. It's ridiculous. You've relied on that phone log because you think it says that Nevill rang the police, but now that some people have pointed out that it says nothing of the kind, you've introduced this new weird theory about a photocopy on the back of an original document (which you can't actually produce by the way).
There is no record that Nevill Bamber rang the police - end of.
------------------------
Yes there is - Ralph Bamber did call the police, and the contents of the log (3:26am) prove and support such a view...
It is the police who have introduced the clock being wrong and the two versions of the same alleged contact timed at 3:26am (RB) and 3:36am (JB) to make it fit their case...
There is clear evidence available to prove this, there would be no reason for the police to produce two different accounts of the same phone call, containing different contents and times...
They could n't even get the contents of one statement right without having to edit it, so why would they go to all the trouble of producing two different phone logs for the same alleged call from the son?
You believe what you believe and leave me to believe what I choose to believe in...
all you do is speculate...
But you just said the document which you claim proves that Nevill called the police is a FORGERY! You can't even stick to your own story.
-
Perhaps we could compile a list of all the documents which are forgeries according to Mike, just so we don't waste time discussing them!
-
I 'think' Mike's being pedantic...
Could be wrong but I think this is his argument:
1) MB - made a log and it was shown in court
2) Some time after, MB's document appeared with with 'another' log photocopied on the back
Mike asserts somehow that this 'new version' must therefore be a forgery (rather than just someone taking the original and added another page to the back to 'keep it together') - it could have been from another researcher no? - Mike is arguing that any 'modification' of the doc is a forgery.
I am asserting that this need not be so, it's simply someone photocopied the original, AND added this other doc to the back.
3) Mike then (rightly) says 'the other doc on the back' MUST exist in its own right somewhere...
A forgery legally is only a document that purports to be 'genuine'. If I make a photocopy of a document and write my phone number on the back, it does NOT make that document a forgery. It only becomes a forgery if I pass off the document 'as found'.
-
I 'think' Mike's being pedantic...
Could be wrong but I think this is his argument:
1) MB - made a log and it was shown in court
2) Some time after, MB's document appeared with with 'another' log photocopied on the back
Mike asserts somehow that this 'new version' must therefore be a forgery (rather than just someone taking the original and added another page to the back to 'keep it together') - it could have been from another researcher no? - Mike is arguing that any 'modification' of the doc is a forgery.
I am asserting that this need not be so, it's simply someone photocopied the original, AND added this other doc to the back.
3) Mike then (rightly) says 'the other doc on the back' MUST exist in its own right somewhere...
A forgery legally is only a document that purports to be 'genuine'. If I make a photocopy of a document and write my phone number on the back, it does NOT make that document a forgery. It only becomes a forgery if I pass off the document as something it isn't.
-
I 'think' Mike's being pedantic...
Could be wrong but I think this is his argument:
1) MB - made a log and it was shown in court
2) Some time after, MB's document appeared with with 'another' log photocopied on the back
Mike asserts somehow that this 'new version' must therefore be a forgery (rather than just someone taking the original and added another page to the back to 'keep it together') - it could have been from another researcher no? - Mike is arguing that any 'modification' of the doc is a forgery.
I am asserting that this need not be so, it's simply someone photocopied the original, AND added this other doc to the back.
3) Mike then (rightly) says 'the other doc on the back' MUST exist in its own right somewhere...
A forgery legally is only a document that purports to be 'genuine'. If I make a photocopy of a document and write my phone number on the back, it does NOT make that document a forgery. It only becomes a forgery if I pass off the document 'as found'.
I thought he said MB's log was NOT shown in court.
I just can't follow what he's on about, and I don't think I'm stupid - I think he keeps moving the goal posts and muddying the waters.
-
One cannot have a sensible conversation with a person who claims that a document is a forgery, and at the same time claims it is not a forgery.
-----------------------------------------
You need to get your head seen to...
(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...
(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...
(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery
(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...
What a load of rubbish. You can't conclude that something is a forgery just because it's a photocopy - that's just nonsense.
Either it's a forgery or it isn't - make up your mind. Every time there's a document which you don't like the contents of, you say it must have been altered, or the police must have been lying. It's ridiculous. You've relied on that phone log because you think it says that Nevill rang the police, but now that some people have pointed out that it says nothing of the kind, you've introduced this new weird theory about a photocopy on the back of an original document (which you can't actually produce by the way).
There is no record that Nevill Bamber rang the police - end of.
------------------------
Yes there is - Ralph Bamber did call the police, and the contents of the log (3:26am) prove and support such a view...
It is the police who have introduced the clock being wrong and the two versions of the same alleged contact timed at 3:26am (RB) and 3:36am (JB) to make it fit their case...
There is clear evidence available to prove this, there would be no reason for the police to produce two different accounts of the same phone call, containing different contents and times...
They could n't even get the contents of one statement right without having to edit it, so why would they go to all the trouble of producing two different phone logs for the same alleged call from the son?
You believe what you believe and leave me to believe what I choose to believe in...
all you do is speculate...
But you just said the document which you claim proves that Nevill called the police is a FORGERY! You can't even stick to your own story.
-----------------------------------
its a forgery in the sense that the original was not exhibited at the trial, and somebody copied it onto the reverse of the other log. Now, somebody tried to pull a fast one here, by copying it onto the reverse of another document, whilst never intending for the original document to be disclosed - the reason for this can only be that on the reverse of the original (3:26am) log, must be other information which contradicts the claim that it purports to be a record of a call made to the police by JB at 3:26am...
In that context, its introduction is considered to be a forgery in my estimation...
But, the original document exists somewhere, and there is almost certainly something written on the reverse to prove that Ralph Bamber did make that call to the police, so in that sense, the contents of the original document is evidence that would tend to prove that Ralph made that call at 3:26am (3:16am) - thats what I am saying...
-
One cannot have a sensible conversation with a person who claims that a document is a forgery, and at the same time claims it is not a forgery.
-----------------------------------------
You need to get your head seen to...
(1) the details of the 3:26am phone log were not disclosed at the time of the trial, but a copy was later copied onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log from the scene. In this respect, the document as a whole was a forgery, since you cannot have an original document on one side and a photocopy on the other...
(2) the original must have existed somewhere, but for some reason EP did not want to give access to it, possibly through fear that on the reverse it contained more information that the contents on the other side were provided to the police by Ralph Bamber...
(3) explanation at (1) above, document amounts to a forgery
(4) explanation at (2) above, proof that Ralph contacted the police (not a forgery)...
What a load of rubbish. You can't conclude that something is a forgery just because it's a photocopy - that's just nonsense.
Either it's a forgery or it isn't - make up your mind. Every time there's a document which you don't like the contents of, you say it must have been altered, or the police must have been lying. It's ridiculous. You've relied on that phone log because you think it says that Nevill rang the police, but now that some people have pointed out that it says nothing of the kind, you've introduced this new weird theory about a photocopy on the back of an original document (which you can't actually produce by the way).
There is no record that Nevill Bamber rang the police - end of.
------------------------
Yes there is - Ralph Bamber did call the police, and the contents of the log (3:26am) prove and support such a view...
It is the police who have introduced the clock being wrong and the two versions of the same alleged contact timed at 3:26am (RB) and 3:36am (JB) to make it fit their case...
There is clear evidence available to prove this, there would be no reason for the police to produce two different accounts of the same phone call, containing different contents and times...
They could n't even get the contents of one statement right without having to edit it, so why would they go to all the trouble of producing two different phone logs for the same alleged call from the son?
You believe what you believe and leave me to believe what I choose to believe in...
all you do is speculate...
But you just said the document which you claim proves that Nevill called the police is a FORGERY! You can't even stick to your own story.
-----------------------------------
its a forgery in the sense that the original was not exhibited at the trial, and somebody copied it onto the reverse of the other log. Now, somebody tried to pull a fast one here, by copying it onto the reverse of another document, whilst never intending for the original document to be disclosed - the reason for this can only be that on the reverse of the original (3:26am) log, must be other information which contradicts the claim that it purports to be a record of a call made to the police by JB at 3:26am...
In that context, its introduction is considered to be a forgery in my estimation...
But, the original document exists somewhere, and there is almost certainly something written on the reverse to prove that Ralph Bamber did make that call to the police, so in that sense, the contents of the original document is evidence that would tend to prove that Ralph made that call at 3:26am (3:16am) - thats what I am saying...
You said the phone log was photocopied onto the reverse of an original log. nobody would do that. They might photocopy both logs onto one sheet of paper, but they wouldn't put a copy on the back of an original. That's just absurd.
None of this proves anything whatsoever.
So are you now saying that a photocopy of the phone log was exhibited at the trial?
-
Anyway, Mike thinks that Nevill called the police based on the theory that there was something on the other side of Malcolm Bonnet's log. That is what's called speculation.
-
Can we just clarify what a "forgery" is?
According to Mike, a forgery is a photocopy. Right?
-
Can we just clarify what a "forgery" is?
According to Mike, a forgery is a photocopy. Right?
JB said in a letter to MT that he can see how EP altered and forged document's , some mention was made of the photocopier helped him find how they were doing so , he went on to say the CCRC have only just been showed or made aware of this , it was only a week or so before the decision , he also mentioned this was part of his learning about the re enactment . i think
-
Can we just clarify what a "forgery" is?
According to Mike, a forgery is a photocopy. Right?
JB said in a letter to MT that he can see how EP altered and forged document's , some mention was made of the photocopier helped him find how they were doing so , he went on to say the CCRC have only just been showed or made aware of this , it was only a week or so before the decision , he also mentioned this was part of his learning about the re enactment . i think
So the issue is really that some documents are photocopies. That doesn't necessarily mean that the originals were altered does it? They might have been, but I don't think anyone can state as a fact that they're "forgeries". I guess it depends on your definition of forgery.
-
Can we just clarify what a "forgery" is?
According to Mike, a forgery is a photocopy. Right?
JB said in a letter to MT that he can see how EP altered and forged document's , some mention was made of the photocopier helped him find how they were doing so , he went on to say the CCRC have only just been showed or made aware of this , it was only a week or so before the decision , he also mentioned this was part of his learning about the re enactment . i think
So the issue is really that some documents are photocopies. That doesn't necessarily mean that the originals were altered does it? They might have been, but I don't think anyone can state as a fact that they're "forgeries". I guess it depends on your definition of forgery.
Obviously would have to be sent to some kind of expert i would think
-
Anyway, the issue of the timing on the two logs was discussed in court, so I think that both logs must have been in court - as either photocopies or originals.
-
. . . and supported by an entry in the major incident project document which was produced by EP...
entry (1) 03:45am, PC Myall sees unidentified male at whf
Would you please post an image of the relevant page in the major incident project document so that we can see the entry you're referring to in its original form and in its original context? Please also state what you know as to the date when the major incident project document was compiled?
-
Anyway, the issue of the timing on the two logs was discussed in court, so I think that both logs must have been in court - as either photocopies or originals.
Is he not saying that one side of an original (suspected)-two-sided document was copied on to the back on another original document?
-
Anyway, the issue of the timing on the two logs was discussed in court, so I think that both logs must have been in court - as either photocopies or originals.
What evidence is there of this? The timing could easily have been discussed without the communications log being seen, and mike tesko insists that the communications log, although bearing the court stamp, was not in the bundles produced for the defence and the jury, and isn't recollected by the prosecution QC or the trial judge. He states it didn't come to light at all until much later.
-
Have just caught up with this thread...
Returning to itemised billing.
JB was a benefactor of Nevill and June's wills. Although charged with their murders, he remained a benefactor until found guilty and was entitled to all information regarding the estate and probate (granted Dec 85). As Executor, Mr Cock would have overseen the paying of all charges and the billing of all due monies.
The domestic WHF BT bill up to 07/08/85 would have been presented for payment.
JB was entitled to have sight of this.
As phone calls were so important in this case, wouldn't the defence have pursued this avenue?
The discharge of probate would have been delayed by the trial, but until that date JB was effectively the owner, and therefore the BT telephone line holder, of WHF. As such, he could have requested the phone records himself.
Likewise, if the line was 'owned' by a limited company he which JB held interest.
I cannot see how the defence did not have access to this billing, nor how the police had any more right to it than JB.
Re Logs
I think Mike's point is that the two logs should have been separately itemised in court and that the non-stamped log was 'sneaked in' and the defence therefore failed to give it due regard.
That does not mean either document is a forgery.
That does not mean either document was withheld from the defence.
Failure of the defence to use documents made available to them is not ground for an appeal.
-
Anyway, the issue of the timing on the two logs was discussed in court, so I think that both logs must have been in court - as either photocopies or originals.
What evidence is there of this? The timing could easily have been discussed without the communications log being seen, and mike tesko insists that the communications log, although bearing the court stamp, was not in the bundles produced for the defence and the jury, and isn't recollected by the prosecution QC or the trial judge. He states it didn't come to light at all until much later.
Any defence worth their salt would not just take the word of a police officer that a call happened at a certain time. They would ask to see the log itself (even if it's a photocopy). If the defence did just take PC West's word for it, well ....
The issue was discussed at the original trial, and it was discussed again at the appeal in 2002. The issue of the timing of both logs was discussed.
Mike insists on a lot of things which are not backed up with proof ...
-
Anyway, the issue of the timing on the two logs was discussed in court, so I think that both logs must have been in court - as either photocopies or originals.
Is he not saying that one side of an original (suspected)-two-sided document was copied on to the back on another original document?
Yes he is saying that, and I'm saying that nobody would do that - it's illogical.
-
Anyway, the issue of the timing on the two logs was discussed in court, so I think that both logs must have been in court - as either photocopies or originals.
Is he not saying that one side of an original (suspected)-two-sided document was copied on to the back on another original document?
-
the inference being that whatever was on the (possible) other side of the original document was ommitted. And therefore the document that got photocopied could be forgery, as it is an incomplete representation etc etc.
Yes, but think about what's involved if you photocopy something onto the back of an original document. You wouldn't do that. You might photocopy two documents onto one piece of paper - one on each side, but you wouldn't feed an original document through a photocopier. You just wouldn't.
I don't know - perhaps it's the way Mike presents things which makes no sense to me - ie, his style of writing, but he definitely said that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of an original document.
-
And just to move the goal posts further, there's also a claim that the log of the scene from 4.02 onwards was fake as well!
I wish someone would just say what exactly was seen in court and what wasn't. I also wish that someone would post the alleged genuine documents which includes this business about PC Myall allegedly seeing someone at the window. Without that it's all just hearsay.
-
the inference being that whatever was on the (possible) other side of the original document was ommitted. And therefore the document that got photocopied could be forgery, as it is an incomplete representation etc etc.
Yes, but think about what's involved if you photocopy something onto the back of an original document. You wouldn't do that. You might photocopy two documents onto one piece of paper - one on each side, but you wouldn't feed an original document through a photocopier. You just wouldn't.
I don't know - perhaps it's the way Mike presents things which makes no sense to me - ie, his style of writing, but he definitely said that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of an original document.
Perhaps his inference is that the cops tried to wing it by doing just that. implausable as it may sound. he's alleging trickery.
-
the inference being that whatever was on the (possible) other side of the original document was ommitted. And therefore the document that got photocopied could be forgery, as it is an incomplete representation etc etc.
Yes, but think about what's involved if you photocopy something onto the back of an original document. You wouldn't do that. You might photocopy two documents onto one piece of paper - one on each side, but you wouldn't feed an original document through a photocopier. You just wouldn't.
I don't know - perhaps it's the way Mike presents things which makes no sense to me - ie, his style of writing, but he definitely said that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of an original document.
Perhaps his inference is that the cops tried to wing it by doing just that. implausable as it may sound. he's alleging trickery.
Why? Why would they do that? Nobody would do that. They would simply photocopy MB's log and then say there was nothing on the other side of it. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to photocopy it onto the back of another original document. Furthermore, Mike is now saying that the "original" document wasn't an original document at all.
If there is original handwriting on one side of a piece of paper, and a photocopy on the other side, it's more likely that the handwritten bit was written on the back of a photocopy. However, that would mean that Malcolm Bonnet was also implicated because his log of the call and the log of the scene from 4.02 are both in the same handwriting - in my opinion. I don't think that MB is part of this alleged "cover up".
-
Furthermore, it's not clear to me which document Mike alleges that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of. I thought it was the document which I posted earlier - ie, the police log which shows the events at the house from 4.02 onwards, but Mike said it wasn't that one.
-
the inference being that whatever was on the (possible) other side of the original document was ommitted. And therefore the document that got photocopied could be forgery, as it is an incomplete representation etc etc.
Yes, but think about what's involved if you photocopy something onto the back of an original document. You wouldn't do that. You might photocopy two documents onto one piece of paper - one on each side, but you wouldn't feed an original document through a photocopier. You just wouldn't.
I don't know - perhaps it's the way Mike presents things which makes no sense to me - ie, his style of writing, but he definitely said that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of an original document.
Agree that this is what has been said and that it wouldn't make sense.
No-one puts IMPORTANT originals into feeders as there is a danger the p/copier will chew them up!
-
the inference being that whatever was on the (possible) other side of the original document was ommitted. And therefore the document that got photocopied could be forgery, as it is an incomplete representation etc etc.
Yes, but think about what's involved if you photocopy something onto the back of an original document. You wouldn't do that. You might photocopy two documents onto one piece of paper - one on each side, but you wouldn't feed an original document through a photocopier. You just wouldn't.
I don't know - perhaps it's the way Mike presents things which makes no sense to me - ie, his style of writing, but he definitely said that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of an original document.
Agree that this is what has been said and that it wouldn't make sense.
No-one puts IMPORTANT originals into feeders as there is a danger the p/copier will chew them up!
Thank you! I was beginning to think that nobody else got it. ;D
-
Furthermore, it's not clear to me which document Mike alleges that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of. I thought it was the document which I posted earlier - ie, the police log which shows the events at the house from 4.02 onwards, but Mike said it wasn't that one.
Thought so too.
And that is what was posted by MT on a different thread. He gave both sides of the 'submitted document' and you questioned then why someone would photocopy on the reverse of an original document.
Think MT is returning to previous points/arguments for new members.
-
Furthermore, it's not clear to me which document Mike alleges that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of. I thought it was the document which I posted earlier - ie, the police log which shows the events at the house from 4.02 onwards, but Mike said it wasn't that one.
Thought so too.
And that is what was posted by MT on a different thread. He gave both sides of the 'submitted document' and you questioned then why someone would photocopy on the reverse of an original document.
Think MT is returning to previous points/arguments for new members.
All this chopping and changing is doing my head in to be honest. The story changes every day ...
-
the inference being that whatever was on the (possible) other side of the original document was ommitted. And therefore the document that got photocopied could be forgery, as it is an incomplete representation etc etc.
Yes, but think about what's involved if you photocopy something onto the back of an original document. You wouldn't do that. You might photocopy two documents onto one piece of paper - one on each side, but you wouldn't feed an original document through a photocopier. You just wouldn't.
I don't know - perhaps it's the way Mike presents things which makes no sense to me - ie, his style of writing, but he definitely said that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of an original document.
Agree that this is what has been said and that it wouldn't make sense.
No-one puts IMPORTANT originals into feeders as there is a danger the p/copier will chew them up!
Thank you! I was beginning to think that nobody else got it. ;D
I'm trying to view things in the context of other documents relating to the case which appear to have had certain words / dates scribbled, altered etc. The two that come to mind are alleged date alteration on one of the silencer related docs and the log were + fermale is scribbled. I dont know what copying technology was available to the police in 1985 but i remember our college photocopier was little more advanced than a mangle-type contraption. I expect they had access to decent spec equipment though.
-
I good solid argument should be relatively easy to present.
There's a number of us now who aren't clear on what the argument is - which to me indicates deliberate obfuscation!!!
How difficult can it be to explain the case of two documents, original, photocopied, or otherwise... and how a genuine document was modified and became a fake one?
Surely it's not beyond the wit of man to have this clearly explain to us?
Mike, pretend we know NOTHING (not too difficult to pretend, I'm sure)... we're members of the jury and need to buy into this, or your client's going down...
Spell it out as though we are 12 year olds...
i.e.
Bonnet created log A.
Someone else creates log B.
Log A and log B were photocopied into one document (Log C)
Log C was misrepresented as Log A
etc etc
Pictures always help!!!
-
the inference being that whatever was on the (possible) other side of the original document was ommitted. And therefore the document that got photocopied could be forgery, as it is an incomplete representation etc etc.
Yes, but think about what's involved if you photocopy something onto the back of an original document. You wouldn't do that. You might photocopy two documents onto one piece of paper - one on each side, but you wouldn't feed an original document through a photocopier. You just wouldn't.
I don't know - perhaps it's the way Mike presents things which makes no sense to me - ie, his style of writing, but he definitely said that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of an original document.
Agree that this is what has been said and that it wouldn't make sense.
No-one puts IMPORTANT originals into feeders as there is a danger the p/copier will chew them up!
Thank you! I was beginning to think that nobody else got it. ;D
I'm trying to view things in the context of other documents relating to the case which appear to have had certain words / dates scribbled, altered etc. The two that come to mind are alleged date alteration on one of the silencer related docs and the log were + fermale is scribbled. I dont know what copying technology was available to the police in 1985 but i remember our college photocopier was little more advanced than a mangle-type contraption. I expect they had access to decent spec equipment though.
Regardless of whether a photocopier would chew an original document up or not, it simply makes no sense that someone would feed an original document through a photocopier and copy something onto the other side of it. What possible reason could there be for doing that?
Even if I accepted that the police wanted to pretend that a two-sided document only had one side, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do it by photocopying one side of it onto the other side of an original document.
-
Spell it out as though we are 12 year olds...
Unfortunately, mike tesko is not very good at presentation, and tends to exaggerate supportive evidence as "proof".
Any defence worth their salt would not just take the word of a police officer that a call happened at a certain time. They would ask to see the log itself (even if it's a photocopy). If the defence did just take PC West's word for it, well ....
Pc West noted he received Jeremy's call at 3:36. He didn't mention 03:26 at all, and mike tesko hasn't clarified (a far as I can recall) whose evidence provided the time of 03:26 and why the defence didn't demand to see an original document to confirm that time. Since the communications log used the word "daughter" to refer to Sheila, it's unlikely that it was known by the defence at the trial.
-
I good solid argument should be relatively easy to present.
There's a number of us now who aren't clear on what the argument is - which to me indicates deliberate obfuscation!!!
How difficult can it be to explain the case of two documents, original, photocopied, or otherwise... and how a genuine document was modified and became a fake one?
Surely it's not beyond the wit of man to have this clearly explain to us?
Mike, pretend we know NOTHING (not too difficult to pretend, I'm sure)... we're members of the jury and need to buy into this, or your client's going down...
Spell it out as though we are 12 year olds...
i.e.
Bonnet created log A.
Someone else creates log B.
Log A and log B were photocopied into one document (Log C)
Log C was misrepresented as Log A
etc etc
Pictures always help!!!
I think you're right - I think the obfuscation on here is reaching epic proportions. It's as if there's some kind of weird game going on.
Anyway, I'm glad it's not just me who can't follow all this ... ;D
-
Spell it out as though we are 12 year olds...
Unfortunately, mike tesko is not very good at presentation, and tends to exaggerate supportive evidence as "proof".
Any defence worth their salt would not just take the word of a police officer that a call happened at a certain time. They would ask to see the log itself (even if it's a photocopy). If the defence did just take PC West's word for it, well ....
Pc West noted he received Jeremy's call at 3:36. He didn't mention 03:26 at all, and mike tesko hasn't clarified (a far as I can recall) whose evidence provided the time of 03:26 and why the defence didn't demand to see an original document to confirm that time. Since the communications log used the word "daughter" to refer to Sheila, it's unlikely that it was known by the defence at the trial.
Well there's only one person who referred to a call at 3.26, and that was Malcolm Bonnet. The appeal judges referred to Bonnet's log so I think it's reasonable to assume that they saw it, and that it had been seen at the trial. If Bonnet's log was not seen at the trial, then I would be asking why the defence didn't demand to see it.
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.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.htm
Para 26.
-
the inference being that whatever was on the (possible) other side of the original document was ommitted. And therefore the document that got photocopied could be forgery, as it is an incomplete representation etc etc.
Yes, but think about what's involved if you photocopy something onto the back of an original document. You wouldn't do that. You might photocopy two documents onto one piece of paper - one on each side, but you wouldn't feed an original document through a photocopier. You just wouldn't.
I don't know - perhaps it's the way Mike presents things which makes no sense to me - ie, his style of writing, but he definitely said that MB's phone log was photocopied onto the back of an original document.
Agree that this is what has been said and that it wouldn't make sense.
No-one puts IMPORTANT originals into feeders as there is a danger the p/copier will chew them up!
Thank you! I was beginning to think that nobody else got it. ;D
I'm trying to view things in the context of other documents relating to the case which appear to have had certain words / dates scribbled, altered etc. The two that come to mind are alleged date alteration on one of the silencer related docs and the log were + fermale is scribbled. I dont know what copying technology was available to the police in 1985 but i remember our college photocopier was little more advanced than a mangle-type contraption. I expect they had access to decent spec equipment though.
Without the benefit of the original and any copies in front of us, this is nigh-on impossible to debate.
We could be looking at copies of copies of copies... with who knows whose additions and the dates these were made.
-
Well there's only one person who referred to a call at 3.26, and that was Malcolm Bonnet. The appeal judges referred to Bonnet's log so I think it's reasonable to assume that they saw it, and that it had been seen at the trial.
The 2002 appeal document refers to Malcolm Bonnett's timings, but doesn't state that they came directly from his telephone communications log. If that log was available, how come its use of the word "daughter" wasn't considered? The same argument applies to the original trial.
The first time fine detail from Bonnett's log was discussed online seems to be in February 2009 in this post (http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=2659&p=23213#p23213) on the SFJ website. I'm currently waiting for mike tesko to reply to me there.
-
Without the benefit of the original and any copies in front of us, this is nigh-on impossible to debate.
We could be looking at copies of copies of copies... with who knows whose additions and the dates these were made.
Valid point well made!
-
Well there's only one person who referred to a call at 3.26, and that was Malcolm Bonnet. The appeal judges referred to Bonnet's log so I think it's reasonable to assume that they saw it, and that it had been seen at the trial.
The 2002 appeal document refers to Malcolm Bonnett's timings, but doesn't state that they came directly from his telephone communications log. If that log was available, how come its use of the word "daughter" wasn't considered? The same argument applies to the original trial.
The first time fine detail from Bonnett's log was discussed online seems to be in February 2009 in this post (http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=2659&p=23213#p23213) on the SFJ website. I'm currently waiting for mike tesko to reply to me there.
Perhaps the defence saw what others have seen - that the two logs probably refer to the same phone call, and no amount of spin will change that.
-
Without the benefit of the original and any copies in front of us, this is nigh-on impossible to debate.
We could be looking at copies of copies of copies... with who knows whose additions and the dates these were made.
Valid point well made!
Since when as a lack of any tangible evidence, whilst there's an abundance of wild speculation every stopped us?
Hang him I say!... we can always grant him a 'virtual pardon' should we change our minds in the morning (in the light of a diagram of 'how it was done' on the back of a fag packet).
Oh and JB used to smoke... nuff said!!!
*dons black cap*
-
Without the benefit of the original and any copies in front of us, this is nigh-on impossible to debate.
We could be looking at copies of copies of copies... with who knows whose additions and the dates these were made.
Valid point well made!
Since when as a lack of any tangible evidence, whilst there's an abundance of wild speculation every stopped us?
Hang him I say!... we can always grant him a 'virtual pardon' should we change our minds in the morning (in the light of a diagram of 'how it was done' on the back of a fag packet).
Oh and JB used to smoke... nuff said!!!
*dons black cap*
Just pointing out that we should be circumspect in regard to any posted document.
Whatever the truth, or outcome, the twins, June and Nevill won't be receiving any kind of pardon...
-
Without the benefit of the original and any copies in front of us, this is nigh-on impossible to debate.
We could be looking at copies of copies of copies... with who knows whose additions and the dates these were made.
Valid point well made!
Since when as a lack of any tangible evidence, whilst there's an abundance of wild speculation every stopped us?
Hang him I say!... we can always grant him a 'virtual pardon' should we change our minds in the morning (in the light of a diagram of 'how it was done' on the back of a fag packet).
Oh and JB used to smoke... nuff said!!!
*dons black cap*
Just pointing out that we should be circumspect in regard to any posted document.
Whatever the truth, or outcome, the twins, June and Nevill won't be receiving any kind of pardon...
Indeed.
-
What you have got, is a piece of A4 paper, a document, which some are trying to argue that at the time of Bambers trial, October 1986, had the details of the log (4:02am) on one side, and details of a phone log timed at 3:26am, on the reverse side?
Well, I can assure everyone that that is not what took place...
There was / is only two sides to the document we are debating, yet there are three pages of information / detail which need to be taken into consideration:-
(1) phone log detailing Ralph Bambers call to the police, timed at 3:26am
(2) phone log detailing Jeremy Bambers call to the police, timed at 3:36am, and
(3) log for scene timed at 4:02am
We should not overlook the fact that the reason why these documents have now fallen to be considered, is because of the discovery of document (1) details amongst the file, in about 2009, which suggested that (1) was copied onto the reverse of (3), and that (1) had the Chelmsford Crown court stamp upon it, as if to confirm and verify that this phone log (3:26am) had been disclosed at the time of the trial - but it was not...
Some sort of trickery has been adopted here, to give the impression that (1) was disclosed, when it had not been...
Let me post the documents in question which are at the center of this debate:-
-
Now, if PC West was explaining why he got the wrong time recorded on his log, at 3:36am, because the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, the only log that was disclosed in relation to his explanation during the trial, was the one (2) he wrote up and produced, bearing the time of 3:36am...
So, what I am saying is, that document (1) was never disclosed, at the time of the trial (October 1986) or even referred to, either by the prosecution, or defense counsel, or any other witness who attended court to testify about the timing of the calls to the police...
Document (1) above, was not disclosed by anyone, at all during the trial...
Document (2) above, was...
Now, so that there can be no misunderstanding about what I have been saying, any document produced during the trial could only have had two sides, which for the purpose of this little explanation, I shall refer to as side (a) and side (b)...
Now, bearing in mind what some have been trying to suggest, it needs to be explained to me, in some sort of simple English language, how three different documents could end up being part of one document that only has two sides, side (a) and side (b)?
Why would PC West be introducing a phone log timed at 3:26am, that mentions Ralph Bambers daughter having possession of one of his guns, to back up his claim that the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast? If he had introduced such a document, its contents would have opened up a can of worms during the trial and alerted everyone to the possibility that Ralph must have made an earlier call (3:26am) to the police, before Jeremy did at 3:36am? It would have created further problems to the prosecutions case, because it would have been open, as it is now, to the suggestion that the 3:26am call must have been made ten minutes sooner at 3:16am, and therefore, and if, the other phone log, timed at 3:36am, had been disclosed during the trial (which I accept it was), both logs could not, and did not refer or relate to the same call made to the police by Jeremy Bamber...
The key to unraveling this dispute, lays with the explanation about the clock in the control room, being ten minutes fast - such a clock was a communal one, that was shared by all those who worked in the control room incident room, switch board, and reception area at the police station...
Because the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, it must mean and does mean, in my opinion, that 3:26am, meant 3:16am, and that 3:36am, meant 3:26am...
Once you accept this, it does not entitle anyone to simply substitute the contents of the phone log timed at 3:26am, for the call that Bamber made to the police at 3:26am, because that call (Ralph Bambers call at 3:26am) was actually made ten minutes earlier at 3:16am, and therefore cannot be reconciled with the call that Jeremy made to the police about ten minutes afterwards...
What you must not do, is substitute the contents of the 3:26am call for the call made by Jeremy at 3:26am, because the earlier call made by Ralph Bamber, was actually made ten minutes sooner at 3:16am...
Finally, it needs to be explained to me, how three different documents, could be printed, or written on one piece of paper, upon a document which only has two sides?
The phone log (3:36am) giving details of Jeremy's call was the one disclosed at the time of the trial - not the other one timed at 3:26am, in keeping with my (this) explanation...
-
The fact that the clock in the control room (which was a communal one) would also effect the timings associated with, or allocated to the dispatch of police vehicles to the scene, and the time of their alleged arrivals there - so, lets look at those details more closely:-
CA7 - was deployed to the scene at 03:35 and arrived at the scene at 03:48, which because of the ten minute difference involving the control room clock, means that CA7 was deployed to the scene at 03:25am, and arrived there at 03:38am. Similarly, CA6 was deployed to the scene at 03:36am, and arrived at the scene at 04:23am, which translates into 03:26am deployed to scene, and 04:13am arrival there...
Another interesting feature, is the fact that it states that at 03:56am, GPO have checked phone line to farmhouse and confirm phone left off hook - which again, attracts the ten minute adjustment which needs to be made because of the fact that the clock in the control room was ten minutes fast, and so this check must have been made by the GPO at 03:46...
Now, I am saying that the timing of when the GPO checked the telephone line at whf (03:46am) was significant because this coincided with the sighting of the figure inside whf by PS Bews, PC Myall and Jeremy Bamber - where PC Myall reported that he had seen an unidentified male at whf, who became a suspect that EP were interested in trying to identify...
You can then see why there was also some confusion regarding the timing of the call by Jeremy to JM - 3:30am or 3:15am, because of an additional complication involving the suggestion that the clock at the digs where JM was living and staying, was itself about 15 minutes fast?
Understanding the complications of the clocks in the control room, and at the living accommodation, where JM was staying, can be unraveled, and thus permit a clearer insight into what took place, by whom and when?
in my opinion...
-
Now I know this is really irrelevant, but in the log,an officer refers to 2 dogs barking.Jeremy stated that the dogs (as in plural) were usually quiet.But only one dog was said to have been brought out of the house.What happened regarding the other one?
-
Now I know this is really irrelevant, but in the log,an officer refers to 2 dogs barking.Jeremy stated that the dogs (as in plural) were usually quiet.But only one dog was said to have been brought out of the house.What happened regarding the other one?
------------------------
Other dog was kept in an outbuilding of the farm (at night)...
-
So if they didn't have both logs, why was reference made to the 3.26/3.36 time discrepancy?
-
Once again, I haven't got the faintest idea what Mike is on about now, but good luck to those who have. ;D
-
Now I know this is really irrelevant, but in the log,an officer refers to 2 dogs barking.Jeremy stated that the dogs (as in plural) were usually quiet.But only one dog was said to have been brought out of the house.What happened regarding the other one?
------------------------
Other dog was kept in an outbuilding of the farm (at night)...
Thanks Mike.Im sure Im gonna sleep better now that I know :D
-
Kaldin, we're relying on you re calls!
Am I imagining that the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy has been legally addressed? In which case, what's new?
Mike.
Can I ask again - what was stopping JB receiving the itemised billing for Aug 85? Under the terms of the will, he was the legal tenant. Plus the executor had a duty to discharge the estate in the interests of the benefactor/s - so in any totting up of monies in and out JB should have had sight of the itemised bill.
Once the police inferred 'alleged' phone call, proving it became an essential part of the defence. Billing was an obvious. I'm astonished if you're telling me that they couldn't get this directly or indirectly. Absolutely astonished.
-
Once again, I haven't got the faintest idea what Mike is on about now, but good luck to those who have. ;D
---------------------------------
how did the three documents (posted) end up on two sides of a document during the trial?
You know very well, what I am on about...
The 3:26am log and its contents (namely the details of Ralphs call to the police ) was not disclosed, but the later one made by Jeremy timed at 3:36am, was). Stop trying to substitute one for the other...
If the 3:26am phone log details had been disclosed, it would have opened up a can of worms, that would have been counter productive to the prosecutions case, and what is more, counsel for the prosecution has confirmed to Jeremy's solicitors, that they did not have sight of that document during the trial - so, where does that leave your arguments?
You are making the mistake of trying to substitute the details of Ralph's 3:26am (3:16am) call for Jeremy's later call, timed at 3:36am (3:26am), as though they were / are one and the same...
What I am saying is that you cannot do that, because the call timed at 3:26am, needed to be displaced itself by ten minutes to the actual time of 3:16am, when that call was made to the police by Ralph Bamber...
-
Let me take this one step at a time.
Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.
Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.
Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a seperate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?
So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?
So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.
-
Kaldin, we're relying on you re calls!
Am I imagining that the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy has been legally addressed? In which case, what's new?
Mike.
Can I ask again - what was stopping JB receiving the itemised billing for Aug 85? Under the terms of the will, he was the legal tenant. Plus the executor had a duty to discharge the estate in the interests of the benefactor/s - so in any totting up of monies in and out JB should have had sight of the itemised bill.
Once the police inferred 'alleged' phone call, proving it became an essential part of the defence. Billing was an obvious. I'm astonished if you're telling me that they couldn't get this directly or indirectly. Absolutely astonished.
-------------------
You are asking me about something that took place in 1985, at a time when I did not know Jeremy, or anything at all about his case. I only met Jeremy in 1989 for the first time, and it was only after this that I started to take an interest in his case. I cannot give answers to something I had no privy to, or did not know about. But what I can say, is that the itemized phone billing notes from 1984 to July 1985, do exist and by implication there must have also existed similar billing notes for the relevant periods August and September 1985? The phone usage was part of the accounts for the business, N & J Bamber, Ltd, which formed part of Ralph Bambers tax return to the inland revenue. I can see how the itemized billing notes were also part of his parents estate, and it should have been possible for Jeremy or his solicitors, to obtain these and make reference to them at the time of his trial. The fact that they may not have done, or that they did not do, is beyond my control, but they may have had reason for not wanting to, or needing to pursue those matters, because as far as Jeremy was concerned, he did receive the call from RB, and EP must have accepted at some stage that a call had been made from whf to JB's cottage...
In hindsight, there appears to have been a lot on things which should have been done, but which were not subsequently done on Bambers behalf by those representing his interests...
-
Let me take this one step at a time.
Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.
Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.
Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a seperate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?
So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?
So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.
---------------------------
Its not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?
seems like a forgery to me...
Document (2) was present at trial, note how the reference to PTO is on document (2), not document (1), so what was recorded on the reverse of Document (2) that EP did not want anyone to find out about, or see?
-
Kaldin, we're relying on you re calls!
Am I imagining that the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy has been legally addressed? In which case, what's new?
Mike.
Can I ask again - what was stopping JB receiving the itemised billing for Aug 85? Under the terms of the will, he was the legal tenant. Plus the executor had a duty to discharge the estate in the interests of the benefactor/s - so in any totting up of monies in and out JB should have had sight of the itemised bill.
Once the police inferred 'alleged' phone call, proving it became an essential part of the defence. Billing was an obvious. I'm astonished if you're telling me that they couldn't get this directly or indirectly. Absolutely astonished.
I've given my opinion before re the phone logs of PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, so I don't have anything to add to that.
As for this kind of post ...
Finally, it needs to be explained to me, how three different documents, could be printed, or written on one piece of paper, upon a document which only has two sides?
I have no idea what that means.
Maybe it's just me, maybe everyone else on here knows exactly what Mike is talking about. ???
-
Kaldin, we're relying on you re calls!
Am I imagining that the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy has been legally addressed? In which case, what's new?
Mike.
Can I ask again - what was stopping JB receiving the itemised billing for Aug 85? Under the terms of the will, he was the legal tenant. Plus the executor had a duty to discharge the estate in the interests of the benefactor/s - so in any totting up of monies in and out JB should have had sight of the itemised bill.
Once the police inferred 'alleged' phone call, proving it became an essential part of the defence. Billing was an obvious. I'm astonished if you're telling me that they couldn't get this directly or indirectly. Absolutely astonished.
I've given my opinion before re the phone logs of PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, so I don't have anything to add to that.
As for this kind of post ...
Finally, it needs to be explained to me, how three different documents, could be printed, or written on one piece of paper, upon a document which only has two sides?
I have no idea what that means.
Maybe it's just me, maybe everyone else on here knows exactly what Mike is talking about. ???
------------------------
How did the two different phone logs, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am, get onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log, if there was only two sides to the document?
Lets put it another way - why does it say, PTO on document (2) that was written up by PC West, yet the log from the scene timed at 4:02am, was written up by Malcolm Bonnet? PTO usually means "Please turn over", to read continuation of message or related details, so where are these? Do you think it could mean the reference to the log from the scene details timed at 4:02am? If so, what was Malcolm Bonnets 4:02am log from the scene, doing on the reverse of PC Wests, phone log, timed at 3:36am?
Basically what I am saying is that the contents of the phone log (3:26am) was not disclosed during ther trial, and the is no evidence to show that it was...
-
Kaldin, we're relying on you re calls!
Am I imagining that the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy has been legally addressed? In which case, what's new?
Mike.
Can I ask again - what was stopping JB receiving the itemised billing for Aug 85? Under the terms of the will, he was the legal tenant. Plus the executor had a duty to discharge the estate in the interests of the benefactor/s - so in any totting up of monies in and out JB should have had sight of the itemised bill.
Once the police inferred 'alleged' phone call, proving it became an essential part of the defence. Billing was an obvious. I'm astonished if you're telling me that they couldn't get this directly or indirectly. Absolutely astonished.
I've given my opinion before re the phone logs of PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, so I don't have anything to add to that.
As for this kind of post ...
Finally, it needs to be explained to me, how three different documents, could be printed, or written on one piece of paper, upon a document which only has two sides?
I have no idea what that means.
Maybe it's just me, maybe everyone else on here knows exactly what Mike is talking about. ???
------------------------
How did the two different phone logs, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am, get onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log, if there was only two sides to the document?
Lets put it another way - why does it say, PTO on document (2) that was written up by PC West, yet the log from the scene timed at 4:02am, was written up by Malcolm Bonnet? PTO usually means "Please turn over", to read continuation of message or related details, so where are these? Do you think it could mean the reference to the log from the scene details timed at 4:02am? If so, what was Malcolm Bonnets 4:02am log from the scene, doing on the reverse of PC Wests, phone log, timed at 3:36am?
Basically what I am saying is that the contents of the phone log (3:26am) was not disclosed during ther trial, and the is no evidence to show that it was...
First of all, the two phone logs are not on the reverse of the 4.02 log as far as I can tell.
It's possible that the 4.02 log might have been written on the reverse of MB's log but I'm just speculating because the pages are numbered "1" and "2". It's Malcolm Bonnet's writing on both documents in my opinion.
PC West's document is nothing to do with it - it does say PTO on it but if that means please turn over, then you need to ask the police for the other side of it.
-
Kaldin, we're relying on you re calls!
Am I imagining that the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy has been legally addressed? In which case, what's new?
Mike.
Can I ask again - what was stopping JB receiving the itemised billing for Aug 85? Under the terms of the will, he was the legal tenant. Plus the executor had a duty to discharge the estate in the interests of the benefactor/s - so in any totting up of monies in and out JB should have had sight of the itemised bill.
Once the police inferred 'alleged' phone call, proving it became an essential part of the defence. Billing was an obvious. I'm astonished if you're telling me that they couldn't get this directly or indirectly. Absolutely astonished.
-------------------
You are asking me about something that took place in 1985, at a time when I did not know Jeremy, or anything at all about his case. I only met Jeremy in 1989 for the first time, and it was only after this that I started to take an interest in his case. I cannot give answers to something I had no privy to, or did not know about. But what I can say, is that the itemized phone billing notes from 1984 to July 1985, do exist and by implication there must have also existed similar billing notes for the relevant periods August and September 1985? The phone usage was part of the accounts for the business, N & J Bamber, Ltd, which formed part of Ralph Bambers tax return to the inland revenue. I can see how the itemized billing notes were also part of his parents estate, and it should have been possible for Jeremy or his solicitors, to obtain these and make reference to them at the time of his trial. The fact that they may not have done, or that they did not do, is beyond my control, but they may have had reason for not wanting to, or needing to pursue those matters, because as far as Jeremy was concerned, he did receive the call from RB, and EP must have accepted at some stage that a call had been made from whf to JB's cottage...
In hindsight, there appears to have been a lot on things which should have been done, but which were not subsequently done on Bambers behalf by those representing his interests...
I appreciate that you simply don't know, and I'm taking on trust that itemised bills do exist. It would appear from Appeal documents that there was only one line to WHF, so I'm also accepting that this was a 'business line'.
But facing trial for 5 murders - probable life imprisonment - is not the time to be saying 'well I know I received a call, so that's all that matters'. No worthwhile defence would take that line.
The case is outlined from available evidence - agreed facts, disclosure etc.
But the details are gathered from actively finding evidence - close scrutiny of what's available, seeking new sources etc.
The defence (rightly or wrongly...) was laid out as JB v SC.
Therefore, the defence began with the phone call from Nevill, so that's the first evidence target.
JB had access to that billing through multiple sources:
Ask BT - He was the legal tenant of WHF, the phones his possessions.
Ask BT - He was a director of N & J Bamber Ltd - the biller payer
Ask the accountant/book-keeper - He had to submit the EoY accounts to I.R. (as was) which would
have included the phone line as an allowable expense.
Ask the Executor - He was the main benefactor to the wound-up estate and entitled to view all
statements and monetary transactions until such time as he was found guilty, unless the
Executor had sought a court exemption.
Ask the police - no ground for PII
Solicitor and silks missing this? If it wasn't done, I'm truly gobsmacked.
I could then fill in the gap with speculation...
Do you understand where I'm coming from Mike?
-
Has Mike posted any evidence that there were any itemised bills yet?
-
Kaldin, we're relying on you re calls!
Am I imagining that the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy has been legally addressed? In which case, what's new?
Mike.
Can I ask again - what was stopping JB receiving the itemised billing for Aug 85? Under the terms of the will, he was the legal tenant. Plus the executor had a duty to discharge the estate in the interests of the benefactor/s - so in any totting up of monies in and out JB should have had sight of the itemised bill.
Once the police inferred 'alleged' phone call, proving it became an essential part of the defence. Billing was an obvious. I'm astonished if you're telling me that they couldn't get this directly or indirectly. Absolutely astonished.
I've given my opinion before re the phone logs of PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, so I don't have anything to add to that.
As for this kind of post ...
Finally, it needs to be explained to me, how three different documents, could be printed, or written on one piece of paper, upon a document which only has two sides?
I have no idea what that means.
Maybe it's just me, maybe everyone else on here knows exactly what Mike is talking about. ???
------------------------
How did the two different phone logs, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am, get onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log, if there was only two sides to the document?
Lets put it another way - why does it say, PTO on document (2) that was written up by PC West, yet the log from the scene timed at 4:02am, was written up by Malcolm Bonnet? PTO usually means "Please turn over", to read continuation of message or related details, so where are these? Do you think it could mean the reference to the log from the scene details timed at 4:02am? If so, what was Malcolm Bonnets 4:02am log from the scene, doing on the reverse of PC Wests, phone log, timed at 3:36am?
Basically what I am saying is that the contents of the phone log (3:26am) was not disclosed during ther trial, and the is no evidence to show that it was...
First of all, the two phone logs are not on the reverse of the 4.02 log as far as I can tell.
It's possible that the 4.02 log might have been written on the reverse of MB's log but I'm just speculating because the pages are numbered "1" and "2". It's Malcolm Bonnet's writing on both documents in my opinion.
PC West's document is nothing to do with it - it does say PTO on it but if that means please turn over, then you need to ask the police for the other side of it.
-----------------------
I have the full court transcript and I can assure you that PC West's phone log was introduced (the one timed at 3:36am), which is what he based his explanation on regarding the clock in the control room, being ten minutes fast - much later, the other phone log details timed at 3:26am, appeared on the reverse of the log from the scene timed at 4:02am, one side was a copy, and the other side was an original...
Now if the clock in the control room was a communal clock, that was used by various people, including Malcolm Bonnet, and PC West, then that call (3:26am) actually took place ten minutes earlier at 3:16am, and could not have been the same call that JB made to the police at 3:36am (amended to 3:26am). What I am trying to say is that you cannot substitute RB's call, for the other call made by JB, because they were still separated by ten minutes in real time?
-
Has Mike posted any evidence that there were any itemised bills yet?
--------------------------
I have already said I will consider posting the itemized billing notes once the CCRC makes its final decision
-
Has Mike posted any evidence that there were any itemised bills yet?
I know the argument re answerphone would have occurred at the trial, but that's a better argument to put before the jury than no evidence of the call whatsoever.
Am I alone in thinking this itemised bill could have been the get out of jail card?
-
I have the full court transcript and I can assure you that PC West's phone log was introduced (the one timed at 3:36am), which is what he based his explanation on regarding the clock in the control room, being ten minutes fast - much later, the other phone log details timed at 3:26am, appeared on the reverse of the log from the scene timed at 4:02am, one side was a copy, and the other side was an original...
Now if the clock in the control room was a communal clock, that was used by various people, including Malcolm Bonnet, and PC West, then that call (3:26am) actually took place ten minutes earlier at 3:16am, and could not have been the same call that JB made to the police at 3:36am (amended to 3:26am). What I am trying to say is that you cannot substitute RB's call, for the other call made by JB, because they were still separated by ten minutes in real time?
There must have been a reason why PC West was asked about the timing of Jeremy's call, and that reason can only have been because of Malcolm Bonnets 3.26 log - in my opinion.
There's no reason to think that PC West and Malcolm Bonnet were in the same room, let alone looking at the same clock.
As for this business about Malcolm Bonnet's phone log being copied onto the reverse of an original document, I went through all that last night and I don't want to go through it again. I don't believe that happened. The 4.02 log may have been written on the back of Malcolm Bonnet's phone log, but if it was, it was Malcolm Bonnet who did that, so there's no particular mystery there.
As for the "PTO" on PC West's log, well the defence saw the document at the trial according to you, so it was up to them to ask what was on the other side. If they didn't do so, that was their problem ...
-
Let me take this one step at a time.
Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.
Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.
Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a seperate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?
So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?
So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.
---------------------------
Its not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?
seems like a forgery to me...
Document (2) was present at trial, note how the reference to PTO is on document (2), not document (1), so what was recorded on the reverse of Document (2) that EP did not want anyone to find out about, or see?
Mike, the lines follow the lines on the log. You can see the log lines beneath the ink of the stamp, exactly as expected.
I cannot see how anyone even knew there was a ten minute discrepancy unless they had sight of document 1.
Perhaps you are attempting to bring forward JB's call to the police, and everything that follows on the pto/document 3 for some reason yet to be revealed to us.
Or do you agree with the timings on the 4.02 log?
-
Let me take this one step at a time.
Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.
Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.
Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a seperate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?
So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?
So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.
---------------------------
Its not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?
seems like a forgery to me...
Document (2) was present at trial, note how the reference to PTO is on document (2), not document (1), so what was recorded on the reverse of Document (2) that EP did not want anyone to find out about, or see?
Mike, the lines follow the lines on the log. You can see the log lines beneath the ink of the stamp, exactly as expected.
I cannot see how anyone even knew there was a ten minute discrepancy unless they had sight of document 1.
Perhaps you are attempting to bring forward JB's call to the police, and everything that follows on the pto/document 3 for some reason yet to be revealed to us.
Or do you agree with the timings on the 4.02 log?
-------------------------
Timings on 4:02am, log from scene could also all be out by ten minutes, if the source for the timings was the communal clock in the control room...
-
Let me take this one step at a time.
Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.
Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.
Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a seperate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?
So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?
So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.
---------------------------
Its not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?
seems like a forgery to me...
Document (2) was present at trial, note how the reference to PTO is on document (2), not document (1), so what was recorded on the reverse of Document (2) that EP did not want anyone to find out about, or see?
Mike, the lines follow the lines on the log. You can see the log lines beneath the ink of the stamp, exactly as expected.
I cannot see how anyone even knew there was a ten minute discrepancy unless they had sight of document 1.
Perhaps you are attempting to bring forward JB's call to the police, and everything that follows on the pto/document 3 for some reason yet to be revealed to us.
Or do you agree with the timings on the 4.02 log?
--------------------
I disagree - look here...
the lines do not match up, you can see that someone has added a piece of paper onto the document and copied it, hence why the lines do not match up and are out of synchronization...
-
Let me take this one step at a time.
Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.
Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.
Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a seperate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?
So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?
So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.
---------------------------
Its not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?
seems like a forgery to me...
Document (2) was present at trial, note how the reference to PTO is on document (2), not document (1), so what was recorded on the reverse of Document (2) that EP did not want anyone to find out about, or see?
Mike, the lines follow the lines on the log. You can see the log lines beneath the ink of the stamp, exactly as expected.
I cannot see how anyone even knew there was a ten minute discrepancy unless they had sight of document 1.
Perhaps you are attempting to bring forward JB's call to the police, and everything that follows on the pto/document 3 for some reason yet to be revealed to us.
Or do you agree with the timings on the 4.02 log?
--------------------
I disagree - look here...
Sorry, I was looking at something else!
I'll look again.
-
I think stamp could be covering something important up by placing that piece of paper with the court stamp on, that EP did not want us to see or know about...
-
Let me take this one step at a time.
Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.
Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.
Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a seperate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?
So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?
So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.
---------------------------
Its not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?
seems like a forgery to me...
Document (2) was present at trial, note how the reference to PTO is on document (2), not document (1), so what was recorded on the reverse of Document (2) that EP did not want anyone to find out about, or see?
Mike, the lines follow the lines on the log. You can see the log lines beneath the ink of the stamp, exactly as expected.
I cannot see how anyone even knew there was a ten minute discrepancy unless they had sight of document 1.
Perhaps you are attempting to bring forward JB's call to the police, and everything that follows on the pto/document 3 for some reason yet to be revealed to us.
Or do you agree with the timings on the 4.02 log?
--------------------
I disagree - look here...
Sorry, I was looking at something else!
I'll look again.
It's an adhesive sticker. It will have a counterpart in court records. It's fine.
May I ask again, do you consider the timings on 4.02 log page to be 10 minutes out?
-
I think stamp could be covering something important up by placing that piece of paper with the court stamp on, that EP did not want us to see or know about...
Like what?
I can't see how anything would be written on the left hand side as the writing is centralised and there isn't a defined left margin. So why would someone write something specific there?
-
Oh, and who do you think put the sticker on there?
-
The key to unraveling this dispute, lays with the explanation about the clock in the control room, being ten minutes fast - such a clock was a communal one, that was shared by all those who worked in the control room incident room, switch board, and reception area at the police station...
Jeremy rang Chelmsford police station and spoke to Pc West. Pc West then contacted Essex Police HQ information room, which is in a different building (at a completely different address) from Chelmsford police station, so it doesn't share any clock with the one that Pc West was using.
It's not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?
Please post a copy of any other form (preferably) or statement bearing the court stamp (with the original background lines of the stamped sheet also visible "behind" the court stamp) so that we can see how a genuine court stamp appears.
I have already said I will consider posting the itemized billing notes once the CCRC makes its final decision
In the meanwhile, can you tell us whether those telephone bills were full itemized or only partially itemized (i.e. summarizing local calls rather than listing each one individually)?
-
The key to unraveling this dispute, lays with the explanation about the clock in the control room, being ten minutes fast - such a clock was a communal one, that was shared by all those who worked in the control room incident room, switch board, and reception area at the police station...
Jeremy rang Chelmsford police station and spoke to Pc West. Pc West then contacted Essex Police HQ information room, which is in a different building (at a completely different address) from Chelmsford police station, so it doesn't share any clock with the one that Pc West was using.
It's not a proper court stamp - if you look closely, it appears to be different, as if the details have been copied onto a piece of paper, and the paper then copied onto the page. Why can't you see some of the linings from the original contents of the page before the so called stamp of the court was applied?
Please post a copy of any other form (preferably) or statement bearing the court stamp (with the original background lines of the stamped sheet also visible "behind" the court stamp) so that we can see how a genuine court stamp appears.
I have already said I will consider posting the itemized billing notes once the CCRC makes its final decision
In the meanwhile, can you tell us whether those telephone bills were full itemized or only partially itemized (i.e. summarizing local calls rather than listing each one individually)?
Evidence stickers - this is how they appear.
I initially thought Mike was referring to a notarised ink stamp.
Doesn't it follow that if timings are wrong on page 1 of the log, then they are also wrong on page 2 - 4.02 onwards.
Matching the actions on page 2 to other evidenced actions would settle it.
But this would then mean JB's call is 3.16am and the transferred call/separate call (to avoid argument!) would be 20 minutes later at 3.36am
If both clocks aren't wrong, then the time of the police cars arriving may help.
I'm struggling to see the point as this all feels re-hashed. Unless we're in for some new 'revelation'!
-
Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.
Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.
Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a separate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?
So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?
Document 1 is marked with a page number (1 in a circle) in two places - why twice? However, it's not necessarily "the opener to document 3". Why do you say it's not court stamped?
Document 2, according to mike tesko, was used in court, so why doesn't it have any court endorsement? Was its continuation (referred to by PTO) also used in court or in the defence bundle?
Document 3 is in the same handwriting as document 1, and has a page number (2 in a circle), but that doesn't imply its corresponding page 1 is document 1. Malcolm Bonnett stated separately that he wrote two logs, calling the second "an incident log". How many pages beyond page 2 were provided, and when?
So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.
The 2002 appeal judgement concluded that Pc West had made a mistake or was using a clock that was ten minutes fast. However, mike tesko says that document 1 wasn't used in that appeal, which would imply the time of 03.26 was given separately elsewhere (perhaps he can tell us where). If that's the case, the wording differences between documents 1 and 2 could be used in a new appeal.
Please don't refer to mike tesko as Mike, as there's a separate member with that username.
-
Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.
Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.
Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a separate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?
So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?
Document 1 is marked with a page number (1 in a circle) in two places - why twice? However, it's not necessarily "the opener to document 3". Why do you say it's not court stamped?
Document 2, according to mike tesko, was used in court, so why doesn't it have any court endorsement? Was its continuation (referred to by PTO) also used in court or in the defence bundle?
Document 3 is in the same handwriting as document 1, and has a page number (2 in a circle), but that doesn't imply its corresponding page 1 is document 1. Malcolm Bonnett stated separately that he wrote two logs, calling the second "an incident log". How many pages beyond page 2 were provided, and when?
So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.
The 2002 appeal judgement concluded that Pc West had made a mistake or was using a clock that was ten minutes fast. However, mike tesko says that document 1 wasn't used in that appeal, which would imply the time of 03.26 was given separately elsewhere (perhaps he can tell us where). If that's the case, the wording differences between documents 1 and 2 could be used in a new appeal.
Please don't refer to mike tesko as Mike, as there's a separate member with that username.
Apologies for any name mix up.
Yes, I've made conclusions on a relationship between 1 and 3 because
Mike Tesko has referred to it's totality as the Mike Bonnett log.
Both bear a square stamp with the number 1 inside, establishing a relationship identifier.
The last entry on doc 1 is 03.56, the first on Doc 3 4.02
The handwriting appears to be the same.
Know nothing about the pages missing from doc 2. or whether these have been posted to support a separate thread.
Like you, waiting for an alternative reference 3.36am otherwise cannot see how the 10 minute time difference was previously discussed.
If all three documents were present at the trial, the wording was available and is not a ground for appeal.
If document 1 was not present at the trial it offers two grounds
the wording discrepancy
evidence that EP either faked or withheld an exhibit
Mike Tesko also refers to a 'communal clock'. Do you believe documents 1 and 2 to have been written in the same room/space using the same clock for reference?
-
They were in different buildings unless the various assertions that Jeremy called Chelmsford police station were incorrect.
I note that the 2002 appeal judgement also mentions that the first police car that went to WHF had been sent at 03.35. I would like mike tesko to explain how that time was known in 2002 without use of the communications log.
-
Document 3 - which is the 'pto continuation' of Doc 1 - is court stamped and was in court. It is clearly marked page 2.
Document 1 - the opener to doc 3 - was on the reverse of the same piece of paper but is not court stamped. It is clearly marked page 1.
Document 2 is - to avoid argument - either the log of the transferred message or a separate call. it is not court stamped. Is anything on its reverse?
So, which documents are you saying were present at the trial?
Document 1 is marked with a page number (1 in a circle) in two places - why twice? However, it's not necessarily "the opener to document 3". Why do you say it's not court stamped?
Document 2, according to mike tesko, was used in court, so why doesn't it have any court endorsement? Was its continuation (referred to by PTO) also used in court or in the defence bundle?
Document 3 is in the same handwriting as document 1, and has a page number (2 in a circle), but that doesn't imply its corresponding page 1 is document 1. Malcolm Bonnett stated separately that he wrote two logs, calling the second "an incident log". How many pages beyond page 2 were provided, and when?
So, was the legal address to the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy not made until 2002?
In which case, it has been dealt with and does not offer new ground for Appeal.
The 2002 appeal judgement concluded that Pc West had made a mistake or was using a clock that was ten minutes fast. However, mike tesko says that document 1 wasn't used in that appeal, which would imply the time of 03.26 was given separately elsewhere (perhaps he can tell us where). If that's the case, the wording differences between documents 1 and 2 could be used in a new appeal.
Please don't refer to mike tesko as Mike, as there's a separate member with that username.
Malcolm Bonnet did say he started an incident log, but the log which starts at 4.02 doesn't appear to have any kind of official form title. It might have one of course but it's not visible to me. I agree that MB wrote that log but I'm not sure what he wrote it on.
-
Doc 1
Top right hand corner number '15(illegible)
Doc 3
Top right hand corner number '158'
Speculating, but the beginning of the illegible number appears as a small dash, perhaps the horizontal upper line of the number 7.
This would create a further relationship of continuing pages.
They both bear a dark ink stamp.
Both should have been in the original suicide file, both should have been transferred to the murder file as they bear the same relevance.
-
Some questions queries:
- If it's accepted that the 10 minutes fast clock was indeed 10 minutes fast - are we to assume ALL logs using that clock as a reference are 10 minutes fast, or merely the initial entry (by way of a hurried mistake) ?
- Although claimed to be a mistake (and accepted), COULD it be that PC West go the call at approx 3.26, called Malcolm Bonnet about it at approx 3.26, spent a while on the call, and a while doing something else then wrote the time in the log, as 3.36 (which it WAS) never realising the event would turn out to be as important as it was, or that the logs would be so closely scrutinised?
-
Image 3 is the reverse side of image 1... same handwriting (check the letter k' with the looping k).
last entry on the first side was 3.56, and no room left. Turns the page over, 04.02... and continues the log.
Does anybody dispute this?
-
Image 3 is the reverse side of image 1... same handwriting (check the letter k' with the looping k).
last entry on the first side was 3.56, and no room left. Turns the page over, 04.02... and continues the log.
Does anybody dispute this?
Sounds reasonable to me.
-
Image 3 is the reverse side of image 1... same handwriting (check the letter k' with the looping k).
last entry on the first side was 3.56, and no room left. Turns the page over, 04.02... and continues the log.
Does anybody dispute this?
Sounds reasonable to me.
Yep!
mike tesko
Administrator
Hero Member
Posts: 2153
Karma: +60/-26
Re: Sequence of telephone calls on morning of 7th August
« Reply #330 on: February 16, 2011, 08:22:PM »
Quote from: curiousessex on February 16, 2011, 08:18:PM
Quote from: mike tesko on February 16, 2011, 08:09:PM
Quote from: curiousessex on February 16, 2011, 07:58:PM
Mike
'Re - You don't know that - what you do know is that at some point after Bonnet starts to record the details of Ralph's call to himself, he is contacted by PC West, at around 3:36am, who informs him that the son of Mr Bamber has called the police, and from that point onwards, Bonnet records those additional facts onto the phone record that he was making out in connection with Ralph's earlier call to him...
Simple deduction...'
And
'Mike, if you are correct and in your opinion, is the 3.36 am time a time which relates to the beginning of Jeremy's call to the Police or a time which relates to the end of Jeremy's call to the Police or a time sometime in the middle of Jeremy's call to the Police?'
Your response 'Beginning...'
Jeremy, at the original trial, in brief summary detailed he received a telephone call from his father, the line went dead, he tried 'two or three times' to phone his father back but the line was engaged.
If I am not mistaken, an explanation for the line being engaged at the time Jeremy was trying to call Neville Bamber was that Neville Bamber was making the alleged telephone call to the Police.
Surley, if this is correct then Neville Bamber could not have called the Police at 3.26 am. In the alternative if he had then his telephone call would have lasted for 10+ minutes whilst his daughter was going beserk. I am sure the Police would have documented more details of this alleged call. Additionally those who would have been despatched to White House Farm would have had more information to hand at the time of Jeremy's arrival at White House Farm.
---------------------------------------------------
Firstly, nobody knows how long Ralph's call to the police at 3:26am, lasted - it could have been just long enough for Ralph to tell Bonnet what Bonnet recorded in the main part of his message. For all we know, the phone may have been cut off, or disengaged, or whatever, so there is no evidence that Bonnet was talking to Ralph Bamber for any longer than it would take for Ralph to impart the words which Bonnet duly recorded on phone log 3:26am...
Bonnet could simply have been in the process of writing up the details what Ralph had spoken about, and then Bonnet was contacted by PC West, who spoke to him about the other call from Jeremy at 3:36am...
The entries CD (1990) could have been added later, into the sender box, in the same way that the details about when the various police cars were dispatched to the scene at and from 3:35am, were duly added later into those boxes...
What I am interested in, is the manner with which it is recorded that Bonnet was contacted - namely by "Exchange line"...
How do you say, PC West contacted Bonnet, at or around, 3:36am?
What method of contact was used by PC West to contact Bonnet and pass all this information on?
So Mike, in your opinion, did Neville Bamber call Jeremy at 3.35 am just before Jeremy called the Police as would be indicated by Jeremy's statement, at the original trial i.e. Jeremy detailed he received a telephone call from his father, the line went dead, he tried 'two or three times' to phone his father back but the line was engaged.
----------------------------
Ralph called Jeremy at about 3:25am, line went dead, Jeremy tried to re-establish contact with father, but kept getting the engaged tone. In meantime Ralph calls police and Bonnet records details on log 3:26am...
Jeremy tries to re-establish contact before then phoning Julie Mugford up, at about 3:30am...
Jeremy calls police at 3:36am...
Jeremy leaves cottage to go to whf at about 3:45am...
Jeremy arrives at farm at about 3:52am...
Apologies for copy/paste and bold - I'm was too dim to know how to quote from one thread to another. Now realise I should have quoted then copied and left original thread for second thread and pasted there... ???
For Mike Tesko
The above was posted in a separate thread in February.
Did you have possession/sight of documents '1-3' at that time?
Does the following accurately reflect your revised view of timings?
Ralph called Jeremy at about 3:25am 3.10am, line went dead, Jeremy tried to re-establish contact with father, but kept getting the engaged tone. In meantime Ralph calls police and Bonnet records details on log 3:26am...
Jeremy tries to re-establish contact before then phoning Julie Mugford up, at about 3:30am ???...
Jeremy calls police at 3:36am 3.16am...
Jeremy leaves cottage to go to whf at about 3:45am 3.35am...
Jeremy arrives at farm at about 3:52am 3.42am...
What has led you to revise these timings?
Would this not make West's log wrong by 20minutes?
How can West's log be wrong by 20minutes and Bonnett's by 10 minutes if - as you say - they are using a communal clock?
It would be very poor office planning if the incident room, switchboard, reception are all in one open space using the same clock. Inevitably, some officers would have to move from their work stations to view the clock.
Kaldin, we're relying on you re calls!
Am I imagining that the 3.26/3.36 discrepancy has been legally addressed? In which case, what's new?
Mike.
Can I ask again - what was stopping JB receiving the itemised billing for Aug 85? Under the terms of the will, he was the legal tenant. Plus the executor had a duty to discharge the estate in the interests of the benefactor/s - so in any totting up of monies in and out JB should have had sight of the itemised bill.
Once the police inferred 'alleged' phone call, proving it became an essential part of the defence. Billing was an obvious. I'm astonished if you're telling me that they couldn't get this directly or indirectly. Absolutely astonished.
I've given my opinion before re the phone logs of PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, so I don't have anything to add to that.
As for this kind of post ...
Finally, it needs to be explained to me, how three different documents, could be printed, or written on one piece of paper, upon a document which only has two sides?
I have no idea what that means.
Maybe it's just me, maybe everyone else on here knows exactly what Mike is talking about. ???
------------------------
How did the two different phone logs, one timed at 3:26am, and the other timed at 3:36am, get onto the reverse of the 4:02am, log, if there was only two sides to the document?
Lets put it another way - why does it say, PTO on document (2) that was written up by PC West, yet the log from the scene timed at 4:02am, was written up by Malcolm Bonnet? PTO usually means "Please turn over", to read continuation of message or related details, so where are these? Do you think it could mean the reference to the log from the scene details timed at 4:02am? If so, what was Malcolm Bonnets 4:02am log from the scene, doing on the reverse of PC Wests, phone log, timed at 3:36am?
Basically what I am saying is that the contents of the phone log (3:26am) was not disclosed during ther trial, and the is no evidence to show that it was...
First of all, the two phone logs are not on the reverse of the 4.02 log as far as I can tell.
It's possible that the 4.02 log might have been written on the reverse of MB's log but I'm just speculating because the pages are numbered "1" and "2". It's Malcolm Bonnet's writing on both documents in my opinion.
PC West's document is nothing to do with it - it does say PTO on it but if that means please turn over, then you need to ask the police for the other side of it.
-----------------------
I have the full court transcript and I can assure you that PC West's phone log was introduced (the one timed at 3:36am), which is what he based his explanation on regarding the clock in the control room, being ten minutes fast - much later, the other phone log details timed at 3:26am, appeared on the reverse of the log from the scene timed at 4:02am, one side was a copy, and the other side was an original...
Now if the clock in the control room was a communal clock, that was used by various people, including Malcolm Bonnet, and PC West, then that call (3:26am) actually took place ten minutes earlier at 3:16am, and could not have been the same call that JB made to the police at 3:36am (amended to 3:26am). What I am trying to say is that you cannot substitute RB's call, for the other call made by JB, because they were still separated by ten minutes in real time?
My bold again.
For Mike Tesko
You state that document 1 (3.26am) was not a court exhibit and therefore the court sticker is a forgery,
and that it appeared 'much later' on the reverse of document 3 (4.02am)
May I clarify again - which of these is the 'original'.
Also, documents are made available to both prosecution and defence counsel. They decide which evidence they will rely on in court.
Are you stating that Doc 1 3.26am was not available to the original defence team, prosecution team or both? Not asking if it was used in court. Specifically asking if it was made available by EP.
When is 'much later'?
Likewise, was Doc 2 (3.36am) a court exhibit in support of West's testimony?
If so, how did he support the '10 minute' discrepancy without reference to Doc 1 (3.26am)
If Doc 2 was a court exhibit the stamp must be overleaf. Where is the continuum page 2 of this document and what is on it?
Ditto Doc 3 (4.02am). Was this a referred to as a court exhibit during the trial?
If not, was it available to the original defence team, prosecution team or both?
Again, if not, when was this made available?
Lastly, JB asserted to COLP in 1991 that Nevill phoned earlier, around 3.10am.
Did the Defence strenuously challenge the 3.26/3.36am at trial or did JB then accept that it took 15 minutes for him to make two non 999 call to the police, the first going unanswered?
JB's memory of events must have been clearer between Aug 1985 and trial at Oct 1986.
What had improved his memory/changed his mind by 1991?
Apologies for all the questions, but a serious allegation is being made.
You'll be glad to know that I'm off to work in Gibraltar for the next few days, so out of your hair!
-
I must say - these phone calls are getting earlier and earlier - allegedly. ;D
-
I must say - these phone calls are getting earlier and earlier - allegedly. ;D
Why not claim it's the wrong year, then it Bamber's free!
Mike's missed a trick there.
-
Some questions queries:
- If it's accepted that the 10 minutes fast clock was indeed 10 minutes fast - are we to assume ALL logs using that clock as a reference are 10 minutes fast, or merely the initial entry (by way of a hurried mistake) ?
- Although claimed to be a mistake (and accepted), COULD it be that PC West go the call at approx 3.26, called Malcolm Bonnet about it at approx 3.26, spent a while on the call, and a while doing something else then wrote the time in the log, as 3.36 (which it WAS) never realising the event would turn out to be as important as it was, or that the logs would be so closely scrutinised?
Also sounds reasonable.
It would help to have PC West's statement or testimony at the trial. I haven't seen proof that the clock he looked at was fast anyway - he might have misread the time, or he might have filled in the time later as you suggest.
-
I have been away from the site for a few weeks and have just been reading a few of the recent posts.
What I have noticed is the following………
In terms of the poll being available on the site it does appear there is a perceived drift towards Jeremy being / probably being guilty.
I have always believed the telephone calls and sequence of telephone calls on the evening and morning of 6th and 7th August 1985 hold the answer to this mystery.
Nothing has changed, in fact the presence and activity in this thread would seem to indicate that this remains a very important subject matter in the determination of (i) the previous crown case and (ii) the outcome of any future trial, should one be granted.
In my opinion and having read and re-read the Documents identified as being 1 / 2 / 3 in this thread the following has become logical to me.
Document 3 is the reverse of Document 1. This I deduce for the following reasons;
A - The numbering in the top right hand corner 15(7) and 158
B - The numbering at the top of each page i.e. 1 in a circle and 2 in a circle (same hand writing)
C - The mutual sharing of a number 1 in a box. – This I presume is the first document record
that Essex Police would have for any incident occurring at White House Farm (Before the telephone call the outside world is unaware of anything untoward happening)
D – Above where it is detailed ‘CD contacting CW by landline.’ the pro forma part of the Communications log in 15(7) appears to detail ‘continue log sheet if necessary’.
E – The last entry on 15(7) is timed at 03.56
F – The first entry of 158 is timed at 04.02
Further, in my opinion, when reading Documents 1 and 2 there are also certain cross references which appear consistent in verifying each other especially when Jeremy admits he called Chelmsford Police Station as opposed to ringing 999.
There has been much speculation about clocks being 10 minutes fast etc. maybe the times for this Police log are correct and it is the 3.36 time in Document 2 which is incorrect / misleading. i.e. the time the call ended as opposed the time the call was first received. If so a lot more makes sense….
I know Kaldin has often asked who ‘CW’ maybe and why CA5 was despatched at 3.35 which is before 3.36?
Document 1 specifically details ‘CD contacting CW by landline’ (written as if in the present)
Document 2 specifically details ‘CW informed + unit + duty PS Despatched (written as if in the past)
Document 2 (Bottom right hand corner details ‘Checked: ……… Duty Sergeant’ the signature possibly looks like, C White PS40 – Maybe CW is the duty sergeant.
-
Some questions queries:
- If it's accepted that the 10 minutes fast clock was indeed 10 minutes fast - are we to assume ALL logs using that clock as a reference are 10 minutes fast, or merely the initial entry (by way of a hurried mistake) ?
- Although claimed to be a mistake (and accepted), COULD it be that PC West go the call at approx 3.26, called Malcolm Bonnet about it at approx 3.26, spent a while on the call, and a while doing something else then wrote the time in the log, as 3.36 (which it WAS) never realising the event would turn out to be as important as it was, or that the logs would be so closely scrutinised?
Also sounds reasonable.
It would help to have PC West's statement or testimony at the trial. I haven't seen proof that the clock he looked at was fast anyway - he might have misread the time, or he might have filled in the time later as you suggest.
It was always my belief that the court accepted he MISREAD the time from a digital clock, and not that it was fast by 10 mins.
Am I wrong about this?
It doesn't sound at all correct that any 'official' clock in a Police station or office would be 10 mins fast. I could accept it was known to be a little inaccurate by a minute or so, but 10 mins fast is more akin to the technique some people use to avoid being late for things.
-
It was always my belief that the court accepted he MISREAD the time from a digital clock, and not that it was fast by 10 mins.
Am I wrong about this?
Yes that's what it says in the 2002 judgement:
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.
-
Right!
So where's this damn 10 minute fast crap come from?
Mike - is this your doing?
Never mind winding clock forwards, it's winding ME up!!!!
Maybe it was a Mickey Mouse wall clock and Mickey's finger was a bit bent (like all the coppers on this case apparently)
-
Jeremy was given the benefit of the doubt in the Judge's summing up at the original trial in terms of a 10 minute differential.
I have been away for a few weeks but it would appear to me the 10 minutes fast being used now are because the previous times of events as have been posted on this forum do not add up.
-
It was always my belief that the court accepted he MISREAD the time from a digital clock, and not that it was fast by 10 mins.
Am I wrong about this?
Yes that's what it says in the 2002 judgement:
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.
My bold...
So, by 2002 Appeal, it is agreed all parties had sight of Doc 1?
Where else could they have got 3.26am and Bonnett?
9 years later they say it is both
a fraud
yet accepted as genuine for Appeal ground - father/daughter son/sister wording discrepancy.
starting point for 10 minute time discrepancy - 3.26 becomes 3.16
Does anyone remember the American comedy series Soap? Had a ventriloquist's dummy as a character, plus Billy Crystal. Used to be allowed to stay up late on a Friday night to watch it on the (then) new Channel 4. Right now, that viewing is serving me well...
-
Jeremy was given the benefit of the doubt in the Judge's summing up at the original trial in terms of a 10 minute differential.
I have been away for a few weeks but it would appear to me the 10 minutes fast being used now are because the previous times of events as have been posted on this forum do not add up.
They're being used for something, that's for sure. ;D
-
Right!
So where's this damn 10 minute fast crap come from?
Mike - is this your doing?
Never mind winding clock forwards, it's winding ME up!!!!
Maybe it was a Mickey Mouse wall clock and Mickey's finger was a bit bent (like all the coppers on this case apparently)
I feel your pain. ;D
-
*whispers slowly* - I still find the 'misread the clock' a bit iffy too, but more plausible than fast clock.
I suspect that even 'misread the clock' is a polite way of saying "wrote down the wrong time cos he was a bit careless and at that point in time, it wasn't a huge deal"
-
*whispers slowly* - I still find the 'misread the clock' a bit iffy too, but more plausible than fast clock.
I suspect that even 'misread the clock' is a polite way of saying "wrote down the wrong time cos he was a bit careless and at that point in time, it wasn't a huge deal"
He probably had no idea what he'd done. He wrote down a time and then later someone says they wrote down a different time which is more feasible, and by then he can't remember what he did. ;D
-
According to the book “Blood Relations” by Roger Wilkes on pages 262 and 263 it is detailed –
“The judge now proceeded to deal in great detail with two critical pieces of evidence which meshed with Julie Mugford’s story. The first concerned the telephone call that Jeremy Bamber claimed he’d received from his father in the small hours. According to Bamber, the sequence of events was:
1. Before he had a chance to say a word to his father the line went dead.
2. He tried ‘two or three times’ to phone his father back but the line was engaged.
3. Instead of dialling 999, he looked up the number of the police at Chelmsford, and called them. The incoming call was logged as having been made at 3.36, although ‘giving the defence the benefit of the doubt’, the true timing seems to have been 3.26. Jeremy claimed he was kept hanging on the line for eleven minutes. A police car was dispatched from Witham, and Jeremy told to meet it at the farm.
4. He telephoned Julie at Lewisham, feeling he needed ‘a friendly ear’ and telling her there was ‘trouble’ at the farm. Julie told him to go back to bed. Jeremy’s call seems to have woken most of the occupants at Julie’s lodgings, who testified that they heard the phone ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”
Ann Eaton’s hand written notes as posted on the forum detail –
‘10pm. Pam phoned. June said ‘I want you to see how Sheil…
Sheila spoke to Pam. Did not say goodnight on the phone.
June said Sheila is going to bed now.
10pm. Jeremy phoned Julie? Why?
3 am. Nevill phoned Jeremy. (she’s got a - crossed out) ‘Sheila’ has got the gun. She has gone crazy. Then the line dead.
Jeremy phoned Chelmsford police. Who didn’t react at all quickly – 11 mins. Then said a police car from Witham would meet him at the Whitehouse.
Jeremy phoned Julie.
Then went to the Whitehouse. Police car arrived just in front of h…
They smashed the door down…..hrs later. Why did they think…
Uncle Nevill was in kitchen Nr scuttle. Badly shot.
Twins in bed shot
June on floor nr door.
Sheila on bed bible on chest. Gun beside her. Shot (through – crossed out)under chin.
Jeremyphoned Julie 6 am from Police Station (I think). A call box’
-
I don't really see the relevance of the timing of all the calls apart from the issue of whether there were one or two calls to the police. I think there was one - from Jeremy.
-
I don't really see the relevance of the timing of all the calls apart from the issue of whether there were one or two calls to the police. I think there was one - from Jeremy.
I am coming to the same conclusion.
Do you beleive there was a call from Nevill to Jeremy?
Depending upon your answer the timings are very important.
-
According to the book “Blood Relations” by Roger Wilkes on pages 262 and 263 it is detailed –
“The judge now proceeded to deal in great detail with two critical pieces of evidence which meshed with Julie Mugford’s story. The first concerned the telephone call that Jeremy Bamber claimed he’d received from his father in the small hours. According to Bamber, the sequence of events was:
1. Before he had a chance to say a word to his father the line went dead.
2. He tried ‘two or three times’ to phone his father back but the line was engaged.
3. Instead of dialling 999, he looked up the number of the police at Chelmsford, and called them. The incoming call was logged as having been made at 3.36, although ‘giving the defence the benefit of the doubt’, the true timing seems to have been 3.26. Jeremy claimed he was kept hanging on the line for eleven minutes. A police car was dispatched from Witham, and Jeremy told to meet it at the farm.
4. He telephoned Julie at Lewisham, feeling he needed ‘a friendly ear’ and telling her there was ‘trouble’ at the farm. Julie told him to go back to bed. Jeremy’s call seems to have woken most of the occupants at Julie’s lodgings, who testified that they heard the phone ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”
Ann Eaton’s hand written notes as posted on the forum detail –
‘10pm. Pam phoned. June said ‘I want you to see how Sheil…
Sheila spoke to Pam. Did not say goodnight on the phone.
June said Sheila is going to bed now.
10pm. Jeremy phoned Julie? Why?
3 am. Nevill phoned Jeremy. (she’s got a - crossed out) ‘Sheila’ has got the gun. She has gone crazy. Then the line dead.
Jeremy phoned Chelmsford police. Who didn’t react at all quickly – 11 mins. Then said a police car from Witham would meet him at the Whitehouse.
Jeremy phoned Julie.
Then went to the Whitehouse. Police car arrived just in front of h…
They smashed the door down…..hrs later. Why did they think…
Uncle Nevill was in kitchen Nr scuttle. Badly shot.
Twins in bed shot
June on floor nr door.
Sheila on bed bible on chest. Gun beside her. Shot (through – crossed out)under chin.
Jeremyphoned Julie 6 am from Police Station (I think). A call box’
So the defence queried 10 minutes exactly without sight of the 3.26am log?
Psychic...
Again, the JM/Lewisham call is still perceived to be before that to the police.
According to AE (Mike Tesko says this is true and accurate re Sheila, so must accept it is true and accurate re everything?) - The police have a traumatised witness to a gun siege involving his family and won't let him use a station phone? Or JB chose not to use a station phone?
-
According to the book “Blood Relations” by Roger Wilkes on pages 262 and 263 it is detailed –
“The judge now proceeded to deal in great detail with two critical pieces of evidence which meshed with Julie Mugford’s story. The first concerned the telephone call that Jeremy Bamber claimed he’d received from his father in the small hours. According to Bamber, the sequence of events was:
1. Before he had a chance to say a word to his father the line went dead.
2. He tried ‘two or three times’ to phone his father back but the line was engaged.
3. Instead of dialling 999, he looked up the number of the police at Chelmsford, and called them. The incoming call was logged as having been made at 3.36, although ‘giving the defence the benefit of the doubt’, the true timing seems to have been 3.26. Jeremy claimed he was kept hanging on the line for eleven minutes. A police car was dispatched from Witham, and Jeremy told to meet it at the farm.
4. He telephoned Julie at Lewisham, feeling he needed ‘a friendly ear’ and telling her there was ‘trouble’ at the farm. Julie told him to go back to bed. Jeremy’s call seems to have woken most of the occupants at Julie’s lodgings, who testified that they heard the phone ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”
Ann Eaton’s hand written notes as posted on the forum detail –
‘10pm. Pam phoned. June said ‘I want you to see how Sheil…
Sheila spoke to Pam. Did not say goodnight on the phone.
June said Sheila is going to bed now.
10pm. Jeremy phoned Julie? Why?
3 am. Nevill phoned Jeremy. (she’s got a - crossed out) ‘Sheila’ has got the gun. She has gone crazy. Then the line dead.
Jeremy phoned Chelmsford police. Who didn’t react at all quickly – 11 mins. Then said a police car from Witham would meet him at the Whitehouse.
Jeremy phoned Julie.
Then went to the Whitehouse. Police car arrived just in front of h…
They smashed the door down…..hrs later. Why did they think…
Uncle Nevill was in kitchen Nr scuttle. Badly shot.
Twins in bed shot
June on floor nr door.
Sheila on bed bible on chest. Gun beside her. Shot (through – crossed out)under chin.
Jeremyphoned Julie 6 am from Police Station (I think). A call box’
So the defence queried 10 minutes exactly without sight of the 3.26am log?
Psychic...
Again, the JM/Lewisham call is still perceived to be before that to the police.
According to AE (Mike Tesko says this is true and accurate re Sheila, so must accept it is true and accurate re everything?) - The police have a traumatised witness to a gun siege involving his family and won't let him use a station phone? Or JB chose not to use a station phone?
I think I read in the book ‘Blood Relations’ the call to Julie was from a telephone box and the Police gave Jeremy some money – I could be wrong. I thinmk the purpose of the call was to advise Julie that the Police would collect Julie to bring her to Jeremy in Goldhanger / Essex.
-
I don't really see the relevance of the timing of all the calls apart from the issue of whether there were one or two calls to the police. I think there was one - from Jeremy.
I am coming to the same conclusion.
Do you beleive there was a call from Nevill to Jeremy?
Depending upon your answer the timings are very important.
Ah, well the jury's still out on that one (by "jury" I mean myself). ;D
-
I don't really see the relevance of the timing of all the calls apart from the issue of whether there were one or two calls to the police. I think there was one - from Jeremy.
I am coming to the same conclusion.
Do you beleive there was a call from Nevill to Jeremy?
Depending upon your answer the timings are very important.
Ah, well the jury's still out on that one (by "jury" I mean myself). ;D
If there was a call from Nevill to Jeremy the timing of that call is critical and needs to be before Jeremy rings Julie.
Jeremy admits to ringing Julie.
Julie admits to receiving a call from Jeremy.
The co-inhabitants at Julie's place of residence heard the telephone ringing.
The co-inhabitants at Julie's place of residence testified that they heard the phone ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”
Jeremy admits to telling Julie something was up at White House Farm althought there is some dispute about what was actually said.
Jeremy admits to ringing Julie after receiving a call from Nevill and ringing the Police.
If there was no call from Nevill to Jeremy......... How does Jeremy know there is anything happening at White House Farm?
-
I don't really see the relevance of the timing of all the calls apart from the issue of whether there were one or two calls to the police. I think there was one - from Jeremy.
I am coming to the same conclusion.
Do you beleive there was a call from Nevill to Jeremy?
Depending upon your answer the timings are very important.
Ah, well the jury's still out on that one (by "jury" I mean myself). ;D
If there was a call from Nevill to Jeremy the timing of that call is critical and needs to be before Jeremy rings Julie.
Jeremy admits to ringing Julie.
Julie admits to receiving a call from Jeremy.
The co-inhabitants at Julie's place of residence heard the telephone ringing.
The co-inhabitants at Julie's place of residence testified that they heard the phone ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”
Jeremy admits to telling Julie something was up at White House Farm althought there is some dispute about what was actually said.
Jeremy admits to ringing Julie after receiving a call from Nevill and ringing the Police.
If there was no call from Nevill to Jeremy......... How does Jeremy know there is anything happening at White House Farm?
Indeed - I don't dispute that if there was no call from Nevill, then Jeremy must have been involved in the murder of his family. I just haven't decided if that call from Nevill happened or not.
-
If someone proved call originated from WHF a few minutes prior to Jeremy phoning from Goldhanger, I'd declare JB innocent in a flash. I'd happily discount 'a hitman' and set him free.
I'd also get Mugford and the Family in a very dark room and ask them to explain themselves.
I'd also be fairly interested in the Police too, but accept they might be very lucky that I couldn't prove a lot.
If someone proved a call was made from WHF 15 minutes before Jeremy phoning from Goldhanger, it wouldn't really change a thing.
-
If someone proved call originated from WHF a few minutes prior to Jeremy phoning from Goldhanger, I'd declare JB innocent in a flash. I'd happily discount 'a hitman' and set him free.
I'd also get Mugford and the Family in a very dark room and ask them to explain themselves.
I'd also be fairly interested in the Police too, but accept they might be very lucky that I couldn't prove a lot.
If someone proved a call was made from WHF 15 minutes before Jeremy phoning from Goldhanger, it wouldn't really change a thing.
I agree. The precise time 10 minutes either way is not really important. What IS important is irrefutable evidence that a call was made from WHF to the police by Nevill Bamber. This would be independent proof that someone was still alive at WHF. And whether that was 3.16, 3.26 or 3.36am really doesn't matter.
Irrefutable evidence would be for example the elusive itemised phone bill.
-
If someone proved call originated from WHF a few minutes prior to Jeremy phoning from Goldhanger, I'd declare JB innocent in a flash. I'd happily discount 'a hitman' and set him free.
I'd also get Mugford and the Family in a very dark room and ask them to explain themselves.
I'd also be fairly interested in the Police too, but accept they might be very lucky that I couldn't prove a lot.
If someone proved a call was made from WHF 15 minutes before Jeremy phoning from Goldhanger, it wouldn't really change a thing.
I agree. The precise time 10 minutes either way is not really important. What IS important is irrefutable evidence that a call was made from WHF to the police by Nevill Bamber. This would be independent proof that someone was still alive at WHF. And whether that was 3.16, 3.26 or 3.36am really doesn't matter.
Think we'all agree. Hurrah! :)
So not getting the itemised phone bill that Mike Tesko now says existed is a life-in-prison (might as well be fatal) mistake.
Mike says EP hold it under pii, but there would have been multiple avenues open for JB to attain this bill.
There would have been answering machine debate in court, but better that then NO proof.
If itemised billing existed, and the defence team didn't access this, I am beyond astonished.
Unless the billing told a different tale so they couldn't use it.
-
If itemised billing existed, and the defence team didn't access this, I am beyond astonished.
Unless the billing told a different tale so they couldn't use it.
That too is what I am beginning to wonder.
-
What is the "itemised billing" which is being referred to? Is it the regular itemised billing we all get on our landlines and contract mobile phones? Or is it something else? I probably sound very foolish, but I am confused - Mike has said he'll consider posting it?
I ask because itemised billing (what I understand to be itemised billing) wasn't around in 1985, according to BT's website:
http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1984onwards/1987.htm
-
What is the "itemised billing" which is being referred to? Is it the regular itemised billing we all get on our landlines and contract mobile phones? Or is it something else? I probably sound very foolish, but I am confused - Mike has said he'll consider posting it?
I ask because itemised billing (what I understand to be itemised billing) wasn't around in 1985, according to BT's website:
http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1984onwards/1987.htm
How do others read the info on this site?
Could the 1987 reference be specific to 'London'?
If it does mean the Uk, does this mean residential customers only? Mike Tesko says the billing was on a business tariff.
Oh dear...
-
It was the only reference I could find besides one the following year which refers to the permanent introduction of itemised billing, again to the City of London. I might email BT and ask them!
-
What is the "itemised billing" which is being referred to? Is it the regular itemised billing we all get on our landlines and contract mobile phones? Or is it something else? I probably sound very foolish, but I am confused - Mike has said he'll consider posting it?
I ask because itemised billing (what I understand to be itemised billing) wasn't around in 1985, according to BT's website:
http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1984onwards/1987.htm
How do others read the info on this site?
Could the 1987 reference be specific to 'London'?
If it does mean the Uk, does this mean residential customers only? Mike Tesko says the billing was on a business tariff.
Oh dear...
I guess it is possible that the itemised billing existed internally at BT at the time of the murders and this information could have been obtained by the defence/prosecution even though it wasn't, at the time, available to customers. It seems odd that this hasn't been explicitly made clear though - if the claim is that the itemised billing was readiliy available, that does seem bogus given the evidence on the BT site...
-
It was the only reference I could find besides one the following year which refers to the permanent introduction of itemised billing, again to the City of London. I might email BT and ask them!
Think that would be a really good idea. Perhaps their press office would be worth a try?
Could you ask them for a copy of the itemised bill as well? I'm willing to pay it just to see it! ;D
-
What is the "itemised billing" which is being referred to? Is it the regular itemised billing we all get on our landlines and contract mobile phones? Or is it something else? I probably sound very foolish, but I am confused - Mike has said he'll consider posting it?
I ask because itemised billing (what I understand to be itemised billing) wasn't around in 1985, according to BT's website:
http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1984onwards/1987.htm
How do others read the info on this site?
Could the 1987 reference be specific to 'London'?
If it does mean the Uk, does this mean residential customers only? Mike Tesko says the billing was on a business tariff.
Oh dear...
I guess it is possible that the itemised billing existed internally at BT at the time of the murders and this information could have been obtained by the defence/prosecution even though it wasn't, at the time, available to customers. It seems odd that this hasn't been explicitly made clear though - if the claim is that the itemised billing was readiliy available, that does seem bogus given the evidence on the BT site...
But if 'internal' how would Mike Tesko have itemised bills up to July 85?
Just thought - they are quarterly. Are the terms Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, July-Sept, Oct-Dec?
-
It was the only reference I could find besides one the following year which refers to the permanent introduction of itemised billing, again to the City of London. I might email BT and ask them!
Think that would be a really good idea. Perhaps their press office would be worth a try?
Could you ask them for a copy of the itemised bill as well? I'm willing to pay it just to see it! ;D
If only! Well, I didn't try their press office but hopefully they will re-direct my query to someone who can answer it.
-
What is the "itemised billing" which is being referred to? Is it the regular itemised billing we all get on our landlines and contract mobile phones? Or is it something else? I probably sound very foolish, but I am confused - Mike has said he'll consider posting it?
I ask because itemised billing (what I understand to be itemised billing) wasn't around in 1985, according to BT's website:
http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1984onwards/1987.htm
How do others read the info on this site?
Could the 1987 reference be specific to 'London'?
If it does mean the Uk, does this mean residential customers only? Mike Tesko says the billing was on a business tariff.
Oh dear...
I guess it is possible that the itemised billing existed internally at BT at the time of the murders and this information could have been obtained by the defence/prosecution even though it wasn't, at the time, available to customers. It seems odd that this hasn't been explicitly made clear though - if the claim is that the itemised billing was readiliy available, that does seem bogus given the evidence on the BT site...
But if 'internal' how would Mike Tesko have itemised bills up to July 85?
Just thought - they are quarterly. Are the terms Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, July-Sept, Oct-Dec?
If he has got them then I presume they would have had to have come from the defence team (assuming BT had such records, and the defence team obtained them, etc.). This is pure speculation of course, so I presume Mike will enlighten us...
-
It was the only reference I could find besides one the following year which refers to the permanent introduction of itemised billing, again to the City of London. I might email BT and ask them!
Think that would be a really good idea. Perhaps their press office would be worth a try?
Could you ask them for a copy of the itemised bill as well? I'm willing to pay it just to see it! ;D
If only! Well, I didn't try their press office but hopefully they will re-direct my query to someone who can answer it.
Look forward to your update.
-
What is the "itemised billing" which is being referred to? Is it the regular itemised billing we all get on our landlines and contract mobile phones? Or is it something else? I probably sound very foolish, but I am confused - Mike has said he'll consider posting it?
I ask because itemised billing (what I understand to be itemised billing) wasn't around in 1985, according to BT's website:
http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1984onwards/1987.htm
How do others read the info on this site?
Could the 1987 reference be specific to 'London'?
If it does mean the Uk, does this mean residential customers only? Mike Tesko says the billing was on a business tariff.
Oh dear...
I guess it is possible that the itemised billing existed internally at BT at the time of the murders and this information could have been obtained by the defence/prosecution even though it wasn't, at the time, available to customers. It seems odd that this hasn't been explicitly made clear though - if the claim is that the itemised billing was readiliy available, that does seem bogus given the evidence on the BT site...
But if 'internal' how would Mike Tesko have itemised bills up to July 85?
Just thought - they are quarterly. Are the terms Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, July-Sept, Oct-Dec?
I do not believe this itemised bill exists.
If it did, it would have been available at the time, and utilised by at least one side, and possibly both.
It seems accepted that no such billing DID exist, and it wasn't challenged by anybody saying "hey, I have such billing on MY bill". And nobody from BT came forward to say "a man is going to prison, and I am the engineer who implemented call logging, so I can get you the logs"
I will eat my hat AND yours if this bill has just come to light. I'm not having a word of it.
This 'bill' is as dead as Buzby
-
What is the "itemised billing" which is being referred to? Is it the regular itemised billing we all get on our landlines and contract mobile phones? Or is it something else? I probably sound very foolish, but I am confused - Mike has said he'll consider posting it?
I ask because itemised billing (what I understand to be itemised billing) wasn't around in 1985, according to BT's website:
http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1984onwards/1987.htm
How do others read the info on this site?
Could the 1987 reference be specific to 'London'?
If it does mean the Uk, does this mean residential customers only? Mike Tesko says the billing was on a business tariff.
Oh dear...
I guess it is possible that the itemised billing existed internally at BT at the time of the murders and this information could have been obtained by the defence/prosecution even though it wasn't, at the time, available to customers. It seems odd that this hasn't been explicitly made clear though - if the claim is that the itemised billing was readiliy available, that does seem bogus given the evidence on the BT site...
But if 'internal' how would Mike Tesko have itemised bills up to July 85?
Just thought - they are quarterly. Are the terms Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, July-Sept, Oct-Dec?
I do not believe this itemised bill exists.
If it did, it would have been available at the time, and utilised by at least one side, and possibly both.
It seems accepted that no such billing DID exist, and it wasn't challenged by anybody saying "hey, I have such billing on MY bill". And nobody from BT came forward to say "a man is going to prison, and I am the engineer who implemented call logging, so I can get you the logs"
I will eat my hat AND yours if this bill has just come to light. I'm not having a word of it.
This 'bill' is as dead as Buzby
I think it's just another story designed to manipulate people into believing that Jeremy is innocent. I think there's a lot of that kind of thing on here. I'm not sure I'll stick around here for much longer.
-
I've been having similar thoughts.
-
I'm thinking the same too.
I wanted the evidence to be discussed openly and listen to different opinions where we can all say "if Jeremy did it then .... " and "but if Sheila did it..."
But it seems to be all "PROOF the conspiracy exists" and "FINALLY, the call log that you can't see that proves everything"
It's mostly dramatic headlines, and little dialog.
I can totally sympathise with the appeal judge who said "the more you seem to bring before us, the more we look at it, and the worse it seems to look for Jeremy".
It's relatively easy to get sympathetic for Jeremy and think it's horrific for him to be in prison if he's innocent (which it is), but... we all too easily forget those who were left behind, particularly Colin Caffell, and even Julie Mugford - who can't escape this man who continues down the same lines he always had - "not me guv".
It COULD be a sign of his innocence that he's kept going for so long.
But it could as easily be a sign of the egotistical attention seeking murderer he may well be too.
-
I'm thinking the same too.
I wanted the evidence to be discussed openly and listen to different opinions where we can all say "if Jeremy did it then .... " and "but if Sheila did it..."
But it seems to be all "PROOF the conspiracy exists" and "FINALLY, the call log that you can't see that proves everything"
It's mostly dramatic headlines, and little dialog.
I can totally sympathise with the appeal judge who said "the more you seem to bring before us, the more we look at it, and the worse it seems to look for Jeremy".
It's relatively easy to get sympathetic for Jeremy and think it's horrific for him to be in prison if he's innocent (which it is), but... we all too easily forget those who were left behind, particularly Colin Caffell, and even Julie Mugford - who can't escape this man who continues down the same lines he always had - "not me guv".
It COULD be a sign of his innocence that he's kept going for so long.
But it could as easily be a sign of the egotistical attention seeking murderer he may well be too.
I came to this forum with an open mind, but now I feel as if Mike is trying to pull the wool over my eyes by suddenly introducing sensational new "evidence" that he refuses to post. I don't mind new theories but all this stuff is a bit like the newspapers which had headlines about Nevill's alleged phone call, which turned out to be a red herring. It's manipulation at its finest, but I'm not quite as stupid as Mike seems to think I am - I see what he's doing.
-
I'm thinking the same too.
I wanted the evidence to be discussed openly and listen to different opinions where we can all say "if Jeremy did it then .... " and "but if Sheila did it..."
But it seems to be all "PROOF the conspiracy exists" and "FINALLY, the call log that you can't see that proves everything"
It's mostly dramatic headlines, and little dialog.
I can totally sympathise with the appeal judge who said "the more you seem to bring before us, the more we look at it, and the worse it seems to look for Jeremy".
It's relatively easy to get sympathetic for Jeremy and think it's horrific for him to be in prison if he's innocent (which it is), but... we all too easily forget those who were left behind, particularly Colin Caffell, and even Julie Mugford - who can't escape this man who continues down the same lines he always had - "not me guv".
It COULD be a sign of his innocence that he's kept going for so long.
But it could as easily be a sign of the egotistical attention seeking murderer he may well be too.
I came to this forum with an open mind, but now I feel as if Mike is trying to pull the wool over my eyes by suddenly introducing sensational new "evidence" that he refuses to post. I don't mind new theories but all this stuff is a bit like the newspapers which had headlines about Nevill's alleged phone call, which turned out to be a red herring. It's manipulation at its finest, but I'm not quite as stupid as Mike seems to think I am - I see what he's doing.
Agree with the above two posts, which is why I started the "going down the pan" thread a week or so ago. I got a load of "smites" for that of course.
-
I'm thinking the same too.
I wanted the evidence to be discussed openly and listen to different opinions where we can all say "if Jeremy did it then .... " and "but if Sheila did it..."
But it seems to be all "PROOF the conspiracy exists" and "FINALLY, the call log that you can't see that proves everything"
It's mostly dramatic headlines, and little dialog.
I can totally sympathise with the appeal judge who said "the more you seem to bring before us, the more we look at it, and the worse it seems to look for Jeremy".
It's relatively easy to get sympathetic for Jeremy and think it's horrific for him to be in prison if he's innocent (which it is), but... we all too easily forget those who were left behind, particularly Colin Caffell, and even Julie Mugford - who can't escape this man who continues down the same lines he always had - "not me guv".
It COULD be a sign of his innocence that he's kept going for so long.
But it could as easily be a sign of the egotistical attention seeking murderer he may well be too.
I came to this forum with an open mind, but now I feel as if Mike is trying to pull the wool over my eyes by suddenly introducing sensational new "evidence" that he refuses to post. I don't mind new theories but all this stuff is a bit like the newspapers which had headlines about Nevill's alleged phone call, which turned out to be a red herring. It's manipulation at its finest, but I'm not quite as stupid as Mike seems to think I am - I see what he's doing.
Agree with the above two posts, which is why I started the "going down the pan" thread a week or so ago. I got a load of "smites" for that of course.
Have missed that thread. Guess it was posted when I left, to return when told some posts were disappearing.
Anyway, here's a +1 for sticking with it.
Have never 'smited' anyone... well, not on here...
-
Have missed that thread. Guess it was posted when I left, to return when told some posts were disappearing.
Anyway, here's a +1 for sticking with it.
Have never 'smited' anyone... well, not on here...
Thanks mb1 - have a +1 back for being a regular constructive poster :)
-
Agree with the above two posts, which is why I started the "going down the pan" thread a week or so ago. I got a load of "smites" for that of course.
Bah you don't know the meaning of a load of smites. ;D ;D ;D
-
Agree with the above two posts, which is why I started the "going down the pan" thread a week or so ago. I got a load of "smites" for that of course.
Bah you don't know the meaning of a load of smites. ;D ;D ;D
That's pretty impressive Hartley ;D
Whose toes did you tread on?
-
Agree with the above two posts, which is why I started the "going down the pan" thread a week or so ago. I got a load of "smites" for that of course.
Bah you don't know the meaning of a load of smites. ;D ;D ;D
That's pretty impressive Hartley ;D
Whose toes did you tread on?
I think about 35 of them are from Elizabeth, that's okay though, gonna try and get to -100 by the end of the month. ;D
-
I'm still waiting for mike tesko to state the nature of the itemization on the bills he has for WHF.
-
I'm still waiting for mike tesko to state the nature of the itemization on the bills he has for WHF.
We're still waiting for Mike to post:
1) Itemised phone bills.
2) Sheila's autopsy report which Mike T says indicates gouge marks to Sheila's arms and that the bullet removed from her neck was fragmented.
3) A statement from Myall that he saw a figure in whf at 3:45.
As it's Mike T's objective to persuade people that JB is innocent (I think), then I have no idea why he won't post documents that he quotes and relies on to bolster his arguments.
EDIT: unless they don't exist of course. :-\
-
You Guys might remember the sensational X,Y and Z factors, the detail of which could not disclosed by Mike until the last CCRC decision date (as Mike was sworn to secrecy by JB) - Damp Squib!
However a lot of discussion, thoughts and information posted on this sight has been very interesting, moving, considered, controversial and sometimes just bloody funny - I hope it keeps going :-*
-
You Guys might remember the sensational X,Y and Z factors, the detail of which could not disclosed by Mike until the last CCRC decision date (as Mike was sworn to secrecy by JB) - Damp Squib!
Yes I remember them well.
However a lot of discussion, thoughts and information posted on this sight has been very interesting, moving, considered, controversial and sometimes just bloody funny - I hope it keeps going :-*
;D ;D
It's just refreshing to see a considered view rather than accepting spoon fed information on face value.
-
Give him chance to write them! ;-)
-
You Guys might remember the sensational X,Y and Z factors, the detail of which could not disclosed by Mike until the last CCRC decision date (as Mike was sworn to secrecy by JB) - Damp Squib!
For those interested and those who have access to the Sleuthing site, here is the XYZ Factors from Mike.
http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=3965
-
You Guys might remember the sensational X,Y and Z factors, the detail of which could not disclosed by Mike until the last CCRC decision date (as Mike was sworn to secrecy by JB) - Damp Squib!
For those interested and those who have access to the Sleuthing site, here is the XYZ Factors from Mike.
http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=3965
Sorry I do not have access to the sleuthing site.
Can you copy the X, Y, Z factors onto here?
-
You Guys might remember the sensational X,Y and Z factors, the detail of which could not disclosed by Mike until the last CCRC decision date (as Mike was sworn to secrecy by JB) - Damp Squib!
For those interested and those who have access to the Sleuthing site, here is the XYZ Factors from Mike.
http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=3965
Sorry I do not have access to the sleuthing site.
Can you copy the X, Y, Z factors onto here?
Well it's just a forum thread with lots of accusations from Mike so a bit difficult to copy over. There is however a document by Inspector Hutchins which is dated 18/6/91 which talks about edited witness statements etc. That is posted below:
-
As of yet,I havent seen much in the way of evidence that is posted on this forum by MT,that isnt already in the David Shaw manuscript. MT..........are you and David Shaw by any chance,the same person? ;)
-
You Guys might remember the sensational X,Y and Z factors, the detail of which could not disclosed by Mike until the last CCRC decision date (as Mike was sworn to secrecy by JB) - Damp Squib!
For those interested and those who have access to the Sleuthing site, here is the XYZ Factors from Mike.
http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=3965
Sorry I do not have access to the sleuthing site.
Can you copy the X, Y, Z factors onto here?
The only factor I found mildly interesting was the X Factor ;D - what do you think? (Friday afternoon and winding down for a beer)
-
(Friday afternoon and winding down for a beer)
Most definitely, it's heading towards that time. :)
-
Google's cache of the XYZ topic is here (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7JIxAfE1ecYJ:www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D74%26t%3D3965%26p%3D35867+%22Astonishing+Truth+about+what+took+place%22+inurl:sleuthingforjustice&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=opera&source=www.google.co.uk). It seems that X was the original raid, and Y and Z were further exercises carried out by different teams between 09.00 and 9.22, and between 10.35 and 11.35, but there is presumably more to it than that.
-
I think stamp could be covering something important up by placing that piece of paper with the court stamp on, that EP did not want us to see or know about...
How can you think that when you have posted a copy of the log without the court sticker which shows that nothing was covered up?
-
I think stamp could be covering something important up by placing that piece of paper with the court stamp on, that EP did not want us to see or know about...
How can you think that when you have posted a copy of the log without the court sticker which shows that nothing was covered up?
Good point......... consistancy appears to count for a lot. Apparently during and since the trial JM has stuck to her story / version of events.
-
I think stamp could be covering something important up by placing that piece of paper with the court stamp on, that EP did not want us to see or know about...
How can you think that when you have posted a copy of the log without the court sticker which shows that nothing was covered up?
Good point......... consistancy appears to count for a lot. Apparently during and since the trial JM has stuck to her story / version of events.
So has JB.