Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on August 26, 2014, 12:12:AM
-
In the early stages of the investigation why would Neville's call not be mentioned, especially as it would prove Jeremy innocent and Taff Jones was keen to get the relatives to back off.
-
Already discussed.
There is no reason.
-
They would of done. They didn't because there was no phone call.
-
Already discussed.
There is no reason.
There is a reason why I am asking.
-
They would of done. They didn't because there was no phone call.
I agree, any conspiracy wouldn't have been in place when Sheila was a suspect so there was no reason to hide any such call.
-
Even trying to play devils advocate I can't think of a good reason.
-
Even trying to play devils advocate I can't think of a good reason.
You would have to try and argue that a conspiracy was there from day one - and that wouldn't make any sense.
-
thats amusing they were hiding it at the time maybe they dident hide it till later.
maybe they just hadent mentiod it becouse nobody asked.
-
thats amusing they were hiding it at the time maybe they dident hide it till later.
maybe they just hadent mentiod it becouse nobody asked.
The relatives accused Jeremy on 9th, two days after the murders - if Taff Jones wanted to get them off his back, all he had to do was mention the call - why didn't he mention the call?
-
how do we know he dident.
-
how do we know he dident.
If he did, then you have to be suggesting that everyone knew Jeremy was innocent, but they conspired to put him away for a crime they KNEW he didn't commit - Taff Jones would have know this too, given his stance would he have allowed this to happen? Is this not so far fetched that it is based on shear desperation? And, wouldn't they have made sure Neville's call was never discovered?
-
once he was off the case there would be nothing he could do about it.
-
once he was off the case there would be nothing he could do about it.
Of course he could! You think that they were able to sit on Neville's call for all those years and no one mentioned anything? They would certainly have to have hidden it because one sniff of it would surely have led to questions from the defense!
-
look at hillsborough that sat on that for 30 years nobody mentioned anything.
who would of listened to him anyway they would just bitter about being taken of the case.
So, would you think that if Neville's call log had been available to the defense, things might have been different?
-
im saying no copper came forward and said anything for a dacade or so now.
none came forward at the time.
So, Neville's call was kept secret all these years?
-
So, would you think that if Neville's call log had been available to the defense, things might have been different?
well not necasrly becouse im not sure its a fact nevile call hapend ethere.
but just becouse no policeman and said it has does not mean it dident its very hard to blow the whistle sometimes.
-
well not necasrly becouse im not sure its a fact nevile call hapend ethere.
but just becouse no policeman and said it has does not mean it dident its very hard to blow the whistle sometimes.
No, I'm not saying Neville's call happened, I'm talking about the log. Surely if EP wanted to keep Neville's call a secret, they would make sure no one ever saw that log?
-
i just gave it as an example of people don't always come forward for years and if they do there often ignored.
another example is the case Birmingham 5 were policeman did come forward but were more or less called liars.
Would you be surprised to learn that the jury most certainly DID see the log from Neville's call?
-
i would be how would you know that.
is it in the trial transcripts.
-
i would be how would you know that.
Because it was the log which was later claimed to be from Neville that was show to the jury and NOT the one associated with Jeremy. This information is available on the official site but people read into something that they want to see.
Don't take my word for it - take the Campaigns http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/nevill-s-call-to-police
Look for the question;
"Question: Why was the log referring to Jeremy’s call never shown to the jury?"
-
It was the log that seems to be from Neville that was shown to the jury. FACT!
No great conspiracy, the explanation given to account for both logs makes sense when you KNOW which log the jury saw.
-
Because it was the log which was later claimed to be from Neville that was show to the jury and NOT the one associated with Jeremy. This information is available on the official site but people read into something that they want to see.
Don't take my word for it - take the Campaigns http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/nevill-s-call-to-police
Look for the question;
"Question: Why was the log referring to Jeremy’s call never shown to the jury?"
that seems to be saying that neviles call was shown to the jury but presented as Jeremys.
-
that seems to be saying that neviles call was shown to the jury but presented as Jeremys.
Because it WAS Jeremy's - Bonnet just wrote it as being received from the victim and not the caller. It makes perfect sense when you know which log the jury saw.
-
The problem arose when there were two Mr Bambers,as both callers had addressed themselves with this introduction. It doesn't take much for the police to get confused ::) Then when they realise they've made a blunder,they surreptitiously cover it up ! FACT,from personal experience except it was a bank who'd put money in g/sons account instead of his fathers' as both had the same name. ::) ::)
The log of the Bambers didn't surface until 2002,when it was realised that the notes were rolled into one.
-
The problem arose when there were two Mr Bambers,as both callers had addressed themselves with this introduction. It doesn't take much for the police to get confused ::) Then when they realise they've made a blunder,they surreptitiously cover it up ! FACT,from personal experience except it was a bank who'd put money in g/sons account instead of his fathers' as both had the same name. ::) ::)
The log of the Bambers didn't surface until 2002,when it was realised that the notes were rolled into one.
Nothing of the kind, it's quite obvious what happened. When West passed on the info to Bonnet, he just gave him Neville's details as he was the one in trouble. Bonnet simply wrote it as though Neville were the caller. For instance the word 'berserk' is Bonnet's word because he uses it again in the detailing of events and there s no other information in the log that differs from the other, other than it is written as though the info was called in by Neville - but it wasn't.
-
I quote " The C1 log relating to Jeremys' call ( written by PC West ) was not shown to the jury.It existed in the " material exhibits file " and not the " exhibits list ",meaning that it was not given an exhibit reference at the trial. There are now several copies with various alterations,which are currently being investigated. " unquote.
-
The jury were never made aware that a separate call was made by Neville.
-
Audios of both calls have failed to materialise !!
-
The jury were never made aware that a separate call was made by Neville.
Because there wasn't a call from Neville, the log that is supposed to have been his call was presented at trial, thsi was an account of Jeremy's call - there was no point in showing the other log because it was from the SAME call.
-
Audios of both calls have failed to materialise !!
There was only one call and we don't know if it was recorded or not.
-
it dosent say that.
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/nevill-s-call-to-police
-
it dosent say that.
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/nevill-s-call-to-police
What 'that' are you refering to?
-
its clearly saying there were 2 calls made.
-
its clearly saying there were 2 calls made.
No it doesn't that what the campaign team are 'asserting' because there are two logs, Jeremy and his team are suggesting that two calls were made. IF he could PROVE that two calls were made, he wouldn't be sitting in prison now, he'd be free.
-
its saying there must of been 2 calls made becouse a car was dispated before jeremy phoned.
for the call they have attributed to nevile to be jeremys jeremy would to have phoned them a fair bit earlyer thean is officially cliamed.
-
its saying there must of been 2 calls made becouse a car was dispated before jeremy phoned.
for the call they have attributed to nevile to be jeremys jeremy would to have phoned them a fair bit earlyer thean is officially cliamed.
There is a dispute as to what time the 'call' was made, West wrote down 03.36 BUT Bonnet has written the time as 03.26. If the call was at 03:26 then the car was NOT dispatched before the call.
-
if it had been prsented in court then presumably there would be copy with an exhibit number on it?
Surely the whole court transcript would be available now anyway ? somewhere?
I was not convinced anyway because if he made the call I think he would have said to Jeremy the police are on their way , also I still think when he stopped the call so abruptly he must have heard shots - so he would not have had time to make another call afterwards .
IMO
-
So if Neville didn't make the call,how did Jeremy get to Goldhanger in 10 minutes ? On what mode of transport ? Then brace himself as though nothing had happened,to phone the police from his own home ?
-
Nevilles' call was made to Malcolm Bonnett,whereas Jeremys' was received by PC West,as West explained in court.
-
it dies seem to be saying there the same call.
or it could calls were merged into one.
-
The difference in wording on the two logs is a bit odd. Can´t see a reason for the "interpretation" into "my daughter" and "my gun".
-
There was only one call and we don't know if it was recorded or not.
All emergency calls are recorded,Caroline.Even today,as a matter of course because of situations like this happening.
-
well jeremy wouldn't be calling sheila as his daughter would he.
-
Not really,nugs----------plus one caller mentioned there being guns at the farmhouse,where the other caller didn't.
The police probably wrote " Mr Bamber" on two counts,thinking it was only one ::)
400 police are under investigation for shoddy work,etc. ! What if they happened to be surgeons ? It still involves the lives of people.
-
Nevilles' call was made to Malcolm Bonnett,whereas Jeremys' was received by PC West,as West explained in court.
Where is it documented that Bonnet received a call from Neville? Why didn't Bonnet testify to receiving such a call? If it could be proven that Neville was alive around the time Jeremy called the police, they could never have convicted him. West stated that he 'relayed' Jeremy's call to Bonnet, not that Bonnet received a separate call from Neville - had that been the case, we wouldn't be discussing things now because there would have been no trial and Jeremy would have been a free man and never even considered as a suspect. The call would be proof beyond doubt that Jeremy was innocent.
-
The difference in wording on the two logs is a bit odd. Can´t see a reason for the "interpretation" into "my daughter" and "my gun".
It depends how West relayed the call to Bonnet.
-
All emergency calls are recorded,Caroline.Even today,as a matter of course because of situations like this happening.
But it wasn't an emergency call, he just called the station number - there was no 999 call.
-
i doubt if you get the word sister mixed up with the word daughter.
-
So if Neville didn't make the call,how did Jeremy get to Goldhanger in 10 minutes ? On what mode of transport ? Then brace himself as though nothing had happened,to phone the police from his own home ?
That's the point, there was no second call.
-
That's the point, there was no second call.
You have no way of knowing that !!!
-
so if there was no second call then a gun would of hade to have become my gun and sister would of had to have turned into daughter.
thats a fair bit to get mixed up.
-
It depends how West relayed the call to Bonnet.
Nevill would not have said to Jeremy "my daughter" - it is the "my" that is weird, and I cannot see how that came about. How did that happen in a policeman´s brain?
-
and jeremy wouldent of called them and said my daughter.
-
Nevill would not have said to Jeremy "my daughter" - it is the "my" that is weird, and I cannot see how that came about. How did that happen in a policeman´s brain?
I know he wouldn't, that's not what I meant. When Jeremy called the police, West took down what he said (father called, Sheila's got the gun etc.). However, West then relayed the details to Bonnet and must have said a Mr Bamber from WHF called and said his daughter has one of his guns etc. So that's what Bonnet wrote. The Neville call had never been hidden from anyone, the jury saw it and Bonnet explain that he wrote what West told him. I could understand the suspicion if it was the Neville log that the jury didn't see but it wasn't.
-
You have no way of knowing that !!!
OK fair enough, I can't say 100% that Neville didn't call but I'm 99.9% certain in my own mind.
-
I know he wouldn't, that's not what I meant. When Jeremy called the police, West took down what he said (father called, Sheila's got the gun etc.). However, West then relayed the details to Bonnet and must have said a Mr Bamber from WHF called and said his daughter has one of his guns etc. So that's what Bonnet wrote. The Neville call had never been hidden from anyone, the jury saw it and Bonnet explain that he wrote what West told him. I could understand the suspicion if it was the Neville log that the jury didn't see but it wasn't.
im being a bt pedantic here but nevile dident say my daughter to Jeremy or my gun he said your sister and a gun.
-
Caroline on that note nobody can say one hundred percent Neville did phone ;D
-
well of course they cant.
-
im being a bt pedantic here but nevile dident say my daughter to Jeremy or my gun he said your sister and a gun.
I'm not talking about what he said to Jeremy - I'm talking about what was said to the police.
-
bt if thats what said nevile said to him then how did it turn into my daughter when jeremys words were that his father had said your sister.
how does your sister turn into my daughter.
-
Neville or Jeremy would have called the Folkes's. It is common sense.
You know Leonard & Dorothy Folkes. Don't you ?
They had been working for the Bambers for 36 years.
Dorothy testified that Jeremy said 'he didn't get on with his Sheila. And that he 'would not share his money with Sheila'. If anything happened to the family Jeremy would 'sell the whole lot and pack up'.
Leonard testified that he saw Sheila and the twins the day before the shootings. He said 'she looked happy enough to me'.
What is also interesting is that is that they both lived in a tied cottage at WHF. Surely the best people for Neville to ring when Sheila went 'crazy'.
They were already there. They knew Neville & Sheila & there were two of them. They probably had a key and unlike Jeremy, Neville trusted them, otherwise they would not be working for him. For 36 years.
Forget about keeping it in the family. Sheila had 'gone crazy & had got the gun'. Anyway, working for a family business for 36 years and you are practically family.
But Neville made a mysterious call to Jeremy. Who said himself he 'did not get on' with Sheila.
And why didn't Jeremy call the Folkes's, instead of Julie and a police station miles away ? Jeremy said it did not occur to him.
Why do people think Neville or Jeremy did not phone two people who were two minutes away ?
-
There are supposed to be 4 calls (in total), Neville's call to Jeremy, Jeremy's call to Julie, Jeremy's call to the police and Neville's call to the police. We're only discussing the last two which are documented - one written by West (Jeremy's call) and one documented by Bonnet (which is referred to as 'Neville's call). However, after talking to Jeremy (in which he told West his father had called and said 'Sheila has gone crazy etc.), West relayed what Jeremy had told him to Bonnet, he then filled out the 'Neville log'. It was most likely written as though it had come from Neville because that's the way West relayed it - i.e. Mr Bamber, WHF called to say daughter had gone berserk with a gun ......... etc. etc. followed by message pass from son of Mr Bamber.
Had the Neville log not been presented to the jury, I could see it looking a bit dodgy but this was the log what appeared at trial and it was explained and accepted. There is nothing in the log (info wise) that is different to the Jeremy log. The same information is present on both logs, it's just that West must have explained the details as if coming from Mr Bamber (Neville) and not Jeremy - which is why it states that the message was passed to the Control Desk by Jeremy at the end.
-
bt if thats what said nevile said to him then how did it turn into my daughter when jeremys words were that his father had said your sister.
how does your sister turn into my daughter.
Read above - it's just the way West explained it to Bonnet.
-
related that way surely it would read his daughter not my daughter.
-
Jeremy's supporters are as bad as the psychiatrist said Jeremy is.
Looking for any tiny detail they can turn in their favour.
-
related that way surely it would read his daughter not my daughter.
Well, which ever way - Neville certainly didn't write it so it has to be the way it was relayed from West and Bonnet just wrote as if coming from Neville.
-
so second hand acoun t from jeremy is translated into a first hand account from Nevile i find that a bit hard to believe.
-
I know he wouldn't, that's not what I meant. When Jeremy called the police, West took down what he said (father called, Sheila's got the gun etc.). However, West then relayed the details to Bonnet and must have said a Mr Bamber from WHF called and said his daughter has one of his guns etc. So that's what Bonnet wrote. The Neville call had never been hidden from anyone, the jury saw it and Bonnet explain that he wrote what West told him. I could understand the suspicion if it was the Neville log that the jury didn't see but it wasn't.
They shouldn´t be interpreting and jumping to conclusions while writing such logs!
-
They shouldn´t be interpreting and jumping to conclusions while writing such logs!
Maybe not, but it contains the same information as the other log (the Jeremy log) but that's what happens when info is relayed through a chain - what you end up with isn't what you started with. The same is probably true of how the discrepancies occurred in relation to the finding of the bodies (one dead female, one dead male).
-
Maybe not, but it contains the same information as the other log (the Jeremy log) but that's what happens when info is relayed through a chain - what you end up with isn't what you started with. The same is probably true of how the discrepancies occurred in relation to the finding of the bodies (one dead female, one dead male).
Funny how no one noticed during the trial - I think it jumps you in the face and makes no sense.
-
Funny how no one noticed during the trial - I think it jumps you in the face and makes no sense.
Because bonnet explained that he simply wrote down what West relayed.
-
Because bonnet explained that he simply wrote down what West relayed.
And no one reacted to the phrasing, my daughter, my gun?
-
And no one reacted to the phrasing, my daughter, my gun?
I'm not sure why they would? Jeremy called to report and incident for his father, West records that but when he passes on the info to Bonnet, they record the it as if the call were from Neville because he is the person in trouble. If they had tried to hide the Neville log, it would have looked suspicious but as it was the Jeremy log that wasn't entered into trial, it seems quit straight forward what happened (to me).
-
my main with this i cant see how the wording gets changed so completly from a second hand account to a first hand account.
-
my main with this i cant see how the wording gets changed so completly from a second hand account to a first hand account.
Because that's just the way it was relayed. There is no mystery - most people (if they're honest) were under the impression that it was Neville's log that was only fairly recently discovered and Jeremy's that was shown to the jury. It's not so much of a problem when you realise it was the other way around. It's far fetched to suggest that both Jeremy and Neville would speak to West, both not calling 999 but looking up a local station number. Bonnet said that he wrote down what West told him, if both Jeremy and Neville called surely he would have had 2 calls from West passed to him? The more you look at it, the less it suggests two calls and the more it suggests one - no matter how it's worded, ultimately, the information is the same.
-
it is a bit but there could be an explanation for it.
-
So there was only one log shown to the jury then later the other log/or rolling log was discovered and there was some confusion as to which one ( or part of the log was discovered later)
was there a reason why the EP did not show the jury the whole rolling log? And why don't they release the original now so any arguments can be quashed.
Was it more to do with the timings with Bonnet sticking to his guns that the call was 3.36 and that the clock was not wrong - and the car was sent earlier than that?
I just get a feeling that somewhere along the line timings are relevant , because there were lots of arguments about them and the police are not usually that slapdash about something so important.
I agree with caroline that if Neville did call then that would have shut the relatives up straight away - so I can not think of any reason they would not tell them unless they were all still in a quandary because something had gone wrong with the raid and they were keeping their options open .
-
mind you dont really know what was said to the relatives they might of said it.
and allso were asuming the police have told each other everything.
-
So there was only one log shown to the jury then later the other log/or rolling log was discovered and there was some confusion as to which one ( or part of the log was discovered later)
was there a reason why the EP did not show the jury the whole rolling log? And why don't they release the original now so any arguments can be quashed.
Was it more to do with the timings with Bonnet sticking to his guns that the call was 3.36 and that the clock was not wrong - and the car was sent earlier than that?
I just get a feeling that somewhere along the line timings are relevant , because there were lots of arguments about them and the police are not usually that slapdash about something so important.
I agree with caroline that if Neville did call then that would have shut the relatives up straight away - so I can not think of any reason they would not tell them unless they were all still in a quandary because something had gone wrong with the raid and they were keeping their options open .
The times are relevant for what?
Jeremy defenders make a big deal out of the times because they are trying to ridiculously suggest that police received a call from Nevill after the call from Jeremy.
They want to pretend that at 3:36 Nevill called police directly. Nevill supposedly called Jeremy at 3:10AM. At 3:36 no one was shot yet and he decided to call police since Jeremy had not showed? He spoke to police for a couple of minutes then Sheila took the phone off the hook and marched him upstairs around 3:38 and managed to kill everyone including herself (including the kitchen struggle) all before police arrived?
The time issue is not significant at all except in establishing how long the gap was between when he called Julie and finally got around to calling police. The two roomates most certain say he called around 3AM. The phone call to police was after 3:20 so what was he doing and why during this gap? That is the siginficance of the time issue.
At trial he attributed the gap between receiving Nevill's call and phoning police to not realizing at first that here was any urgency. He said only after thinking about it a while did he get worried.
-
The reason Essex Police did not mention that Nevill called the police is because there is no evidence that Nevill did call the police.
In fact the opposite is true.
It is Jeremy who provides the evidence that indicates Nevill did not call the police.
Jeremy described the timings and sequence of telephone calls whilst the events were unfolding and during his subsequent statements / interviews.
It is Jeremy's description of these events which causes Jeremy most problems in terms of his conviction and guilt for the following reasons.
By mentioning an alleged telephone call being received it becomes the case that if the murderer is not Sheila then through Jeremy's unique knowledge in reporting the tragic events then Jeremy has to be instrumental and involved in the killings.
Jeremy also provided a description of events which was technically impossible to have occurred.
Jeremy initially says he received an alleged telephone call from Nevill. The telephone line went dead and then Jeremy says he immediately rang back and got an engaged tone. Jeremy continued to use his memory redial facility on his telephone whilst getting the engaged tone. This Jeremy detailed to the police. (If the telephone line was open at that time Jeremy would not have been able to use his telephone to immediately ring back.)
Within the police telephone log which Jeremy and his website argue is a record of a further alleged telephone call from Nevill to the police it is detailed......
(i) GPO checked the telephone line and confirmed the line was open
And
(ii) Message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber.
If this log is to detail an alleged telephone call as received from Nevill to the police then why will the police have got the GPO to check the telephone line to White House Farm. - This is something that is unique to Jeremy's reporting of events.
It does not make any sense for the police to have received a telephone call from Nevill and to then get the GPO to check the telephone line to White House Farm.
Afterall the police did not get the GPO to check the telephone line to 9 Head Street (Jeremy's address) after they had received a telephone call from Jeremy.
However, if Jeremy had dialled the telephone number for 9 Head Street from a telephone in the kitchen at White House Farm and then left the same White House Farm telephone off the hook whilst Jeremy returned home to 9 Head Street then if Jeremy was to immediately ring White House Farm having later arrived back at 9 Head Street then Jeremy would have got an engaged tone. The engaged tone would be repeatedly heard if Jeremy was to repeatedly use his memory redial facility on his telephone. If the GPO were to later remotely check the telephone line at White House Farm it would be confirmed the telephone line at White House Farm was open.
What is critical in this instance is the time delay that is required in Jeremy's described and detailed 'engaged tone' state to have occurred. Such a 'engaged tone' situation does not occur immediately if a telephone line suddenly goes dead or is interrupted. As such Jeremy would not have been able to immediately dial out from his telephone at 9 Head Street having just allegedly received a frantic telephone call from Nevill.
-
The reason Essex Police did not mention that Nevill called the police is because there is no evidence that Nevill did call the police.
In fact the opposite is true.
It is Jeremy who provides the evidence that indicates Nevill did not call the police.
Jeremy described the timings and sequence of telephone calls whilst the events were unfolding and during his subsequent statements / interviews.
It is Jeremy's description of these events which causes Jeremy most problems in terms of his conviction and guilt for the following reasons.
By mentioning an alleged telephone call being received it becomes the case that if the murderer is not Sheila then through Jeremy's unique knowledge in reporting the tragic events then Jeremy has to be instrumental and involved in the killings.
Jeremy also provided a description of events which was technically impossible to have occurred.
Jeremy initially says he received an alleged telephone call from Nevill. The telephone line went dead and then Jeremy says he immediately rang back and got an engaged tone. Jeremy continued to use his memory redial facility on his telephone whilst getting the engaged tone. This Jeremy detailed to the police. (If the telephone line was open at that time Jeremy would not have been able to use his telephone to immediately ring back.)
Within the police telephone log which Jeremy and his website argue is a record of a further alleged telephone call from Nevill to the police it is detailed......
(i) GPO checked the telephone line and confirmed the line was open
And
(ii) Message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber.
If this log is to detail an alleged telephone call as received from Nevill to the police then why will the police have got the GPO to check the telephone line to White House Farm. - This is something that is unique to Jeremy's reporting of events.
It does not make any sense for the police to have received a telephone call from Nevill and to then get the GPO to check the telephone line to White House Farm.
Afterall the police did not get the GPO to check the telephone line to 9 Head Street (Jeremy's address) after they had received a telephone call from Jeremy.
However, if Jeremy had dialled the telephone number for 9 Head Street from a telephone in the kitchen at White House Farm and then left the same White House Farm telephone off the hook whilst Jeremy returned home to 9 Head Street then if Jeremy was to immediately ring White House Farm having later arrived back at 9 Head Street then Jeremy would have got an engaged tone. The engaged tone would be repeatedly heard if Jeremy was to repeatedly use his memory redial facility on his telephone. If the GPO were to later remotely check the telephone line at White House Farm it would be confirmed the telephone line at White House Farm was open.
What is critical in this instance is the time delay that is required in Jeremy's described and detailed 'engaged tone' state to have occurred. Such a 'engaged tone' situation does not occur immediately if a telephone line suddenly goes dead or is interrupted. As such Jeremy would not have been able to immediately dial out from his telephone at 9 Head Street having just allegedly received a frantic telephone call from Nevill.
Wow. That's a good post CE. Certianly got my mind alert.
-
curiousessex brilliant post I have thought of late that the phone call scenario was Jeremy Bambers main downfall. The details which he gives to describe the whole phone call from Ralph are not credible at all and when I studied details in depth I could see they did not add up as he changes things so much and so much of it does not make sense no wonder the police thought he was guilty before they had their evidence. Jeremy Bamber should have gone home to bed and wait instead he complicated the whole matter by trying to create an alibi for himself and he did just the opposite
-
There is nothing in the log (info wise) that is different to the Jeremy log. The same information is present on both logs
You should know that is incorrect. Bonnett's log doesn't give Jeremy's telephone number or address, whereas Pc West's log does. More significantly, Sheila's age is given differently in the two logs, 26 yrs in Bonnett's log, but 27 yrs in Pc West's log.
Jeremy also provided a description of events which was technically impossible to have occurred.
Jeremy's account is not technically impossible. If Nevill called Jeremy and then abruptly ended the call, Jeremy would have been correct in saying the line went dead. If Nevill then picked the receiver up again and left it off-hook, Jeremy could have tried to ring him back and would have got the engaged tone when he did so, and the operator would correctly find the WHF telephone was off-hook (which is the term used for its state). I am not suggesting that Nevill did this for no reason; he might have been calling the police straight away or there might have been some other reason that we can never know for sure.
Pc West notes the operator gave information about the WHF line at 03:42, which is just after when Jeremy's call would have ended had it started at 03:36 and had Pc West's evidence about how long it lasted been correct. In 1985, the operator could check the line immediately when asked.
-
You should know that is incorrect. Bonnett's log doesn't give Jeremy's telephone number or address, whereas Pc West's log does. More significantly, Sheila's age is given differently in the two logs, 26 yrs in Bonnett's log, but 27 yrs in Pc West's log.
It's not incorrect! Why would Bonnet's log contain Jeremy's number when it wasn't called in by him? It was passed to him by West who gave him Neville's details. The age was probably relayed incorrectly. There really is no mystery when you know that the time on Bonnet's log is 03:26 and both he and West couldn't have made a mistake. There was no call from Neville, there can't have been, he'd have called 999 if he thought it was necessary to call the police. There is no reason why a call from Neville would have been withheld in the early stages when Jeremy was a suspect and you have to enter the realms of fantasy to dream one up. It doesn't make sense no matter which way you look at it.
-
Wow. That's a good post CE. Certianly got my mind alert.
Thank you Mat.
There would also be more than a total of 2 off telephone logs if Nevill had rang Essex Police.
If Nevill had rung Chelmsford Police Station there would be total of 4 off telephone logs .
These being the 2 off for Jeremy's telephone call to the police as already exist plus 2 off more for Nevill's call to Chelmsford Police Station. These would include an additional telephone log to cover Nevill's call to Chelmsford Police Station and then a further additional telephone log to cover Chelmsford Police Station relaying the details of Nevill's call to HQ control room as has occurred with Jeremy's telephone call to Chelmsford Police Station. All telephone logs would be detailed as being received from 'exchange' line as they are for both of the telephone logs which cover Jeremy's call to Chelmsford Police Station.
If Nevill had dialled 999 there would be a total of 3 off telephone logs. These being the 2 off for Jeremy's telephone call to the police which already exist plus an additional 1 off telephone log to cover a '999' call from Nevill. The 2 off telephone logs which cover Jeremy's call to Chelmsford Police Station would be marked as being received as 'exchange' line, which they are. The additional third telephone log identifying a 999 call from Nevill would be marked up as being received as '999' calls.
The fact of the matter is there are only 2 telephone call logs and they both support and refer to the single telephone call as made by Jeremy to Chelmsford Police Station.
Even the people who wrote the referenced telephone call logs say they both refer to a single telephone call. The information contained within the telephone call logs is consistent with what they state 'Message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber' and 'GPO checked the telephone line and confirmed the line was open.'
-
curiousessex brilliant post I have thought of late that the phone call scenario was Jeremy Bambers main downfall. The details which he gives to describe the whole phone call from Ralph are not credible at all and when I studied details in depth I could see they did not add up as he changes things so much and so much of it does not make sense no wonder the police thought he was guilty before they had their evidence. Jeremy Bamber should have gone home to bed and wait instead he complicated the whole matter by trying to create an alibi for himself and he did just the opposite
Susan
Thank you
I concur re 'Jeremy should have gone home to bed and wait'.
-
Susan
Thank you
I concur re 'Jeremy should have gone home to bed and wait'.
see I am still confused
I thought that Jeremy did not think his father had called. Even in court when the log was shown he just assumed it was as you were saying that it was presented as his phone call passed on to another.
It was not until the whole rolling log was revealed (long after the court case )that there seemed to be some odd differences with the timings and the wording that were not evident when only one part was presented? then it was thought there was a possibility he had called ?
Also I though that the EP have still refused to release the original log so it could be checked to make sure there were no changes?
Am I completely confused and wrong?
-
see I am still confused
I thought that Jeremy did not think his father had called. Even in court when the log was shown he just assumed it was as you were saying that it was presented as his phone call passed on to another.
It was not until the whole rolling log was revealed (long after the court case )that there seemed to be some odd differences with the timings and the wording that were not evident when only one part was presented? then it was thought there was a possibility he had called ?
Also I though that the EP have still refused to release the original log so it could be checked to make sure there were no changes?
Am I completely confused and wrong?
Jeremy didn't initially say his father called the police - how could he know that? However, he is claiming it now. Since the discovery (or finding) of the log West wrote when he called, he is using that to to say there must have been 2 separate calls.
-
Jeremy didn't initially say his father called the police - how could he know that? However, he is claiming it now. Since the discovery (or finding) of the log West wrote when he called, he is using that to to say there must have been 2 separate calls.
yes sort of what I thought. I guess if you have been trying for so many years to find documents - for whatever reason - then you are going to query everything.
-
yes sort of what I thought. I guess if you have been trying for so many years to find documents - for whatever reason - then you are going to query everything.
The campaign team have made a big issue out of it and really haven't thought it through. Sometimes they make things worse for him and just end up sounding desperate.
-
The campaign team have made a big issue out of it and really haven't thought it through. Sometimes they make things worse for him and just end up sounding desperate.
Maybe now the campaign team or his legal team can enlighten Jeremy by showing him this topic and clue him in on the OBVIOUS by showing him the work you've done?
I think failure to accept what the log actually contains is failure to admit the truth and shows a dis-honest campaign team a dis-honest legal team and a dis-honest Bamber.
-
Maybe now the campaign team or his legal team can enlighten Jeremy by showing him this topic and clue him in on the OBVIOUS by showing him the work you've done?
I think failure to accept what the log actually contains is failure to admit the truth and shows a dis-honest campaign team a dis-honest legal team and a dis-honest Bamber.
There are a lot of things floating around like that - but it does work both ways - the guilters use some pretty stupid arguments as well if we are all honest
-
There are a lot of things floating around like that - but it does work both ways - the guilters use some pretty stupid arguments as well if we are all honest
Big difference though in the campaign team and his defence in using the phone call to publicly promote an apparent MOJ than there is in guilters posting on forums. :-\
-
. . . when you know that the time on Bonnet's log is 03:26 and both he and West couldn't have made a mistake.
Why couldn't they have made a mistake? We know that Sheila's age was recorded differently, which was a mistake if there was only one call, and Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett later contradicted each other as to who despatched car CA07. Arguing that Pc West would definitely have told Jeremy that his father had already called doesn't suffice. Pc West's priority would have been to log what Jeremy told him and take appropriate action. If Jeremy was guilty, why wouldn't he have dialled 999?
-
Why couldn't they have made a mistake? We know that Sheila's age was recorded differently, which was a mistake if there was only one call, and Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett later contradicted each other as to who despatched car CA07. Arguing that Pc West would definitely have told Jeremy that his father had already called doesn't suffice. Pc West's priority would have been to log what Jeremy told him and take appropriate action. If Jeremy was guilty, why wouldn't he have dialled 999?
West DID make a mistake, he admits he may have wrote the time incorrectly. He probably wrote it at the end of the call, he even suggests that such things might happen although they do their best to record the time at the beginning of the call, it doesn't always end up that way. Sheila's age may simply have been misheard by Bonnet.
I'm not really arguing that PC West would have told Jeremy that his father had called - I'm asking WHY if EP knew that Neville had called that they didn't mention the call - even at the beginning when the relatives were accusing Jeremy? Taff Jones WOULD have mentioned it to get them off his back and Stan Jones would never have suspected Jeremy because he would have KNOWN Neville was alive when Jeremy was talking to police in from Goldhanger. I really can't say it any clearer - if you don't have a reason WHY this call was kept secret, then how can you even being to argue that it occurred. Seriously, this is starting to reek of desperation. It's a simply enough question that no one has an answer for.
-
Why wasn't only one car sent with there only being one ? call ?
-
Why wasn't only one car sent with there only being one ? call ?
Because Jeremy told them there were guns involved, they don't just allocate one car per call, it depends on the situation not the number of callers.
-
Because Jeremy told them there were guns involved, they don't just allocate one car per call, it depends on the situation not the number of callers.
Or what was said in the call,as one call mentioned guns,the other didn't.
-
Why wasn't only one car sent with there only being one ? call ?
Bonnett was looking for multiple cars to respond because you want a good number of police for a situation like the one described. The problem is that given the time of day there were not many cars that could be dispatched and the second was far away. After Sgt Bewes was told that Sheila had an aresenal at her disposal, was crazy and had used all the weapons he requested armed assistance and that is why the first batch of armed officers arrived around 5AM.
-
But who was the caller who'd told the police that there were,or was,a gun in use ?
-
But who was the caller who'd told the police that there were,or was,a gun in use ?
I don't know what call you men lookout?
-
Lookout/Caroline Jeremy Bamber told the police his Father said Sheila had a rifle or words to that effect but I for one do not believe his Father ever phoned him as the poor man was lying dead :(
-
Lookout/Caroline Jeremy Bamber told the police his Father said Sheila had a rifle or words to that effect but I for one do not believe his Father ever phoned him as the poor man was lying dead :(
In that case - there was no other call Lookout, it's just two longs for the same call. One from the initial call to West and another when 'West' passed the info to Bonnet. Two logs, one call - from Jeremy.
-
But what we have to establish if only one call was made,was how Jeremy was supposed to have returned to Goldhanger from WHF in order to make that call.
-
But what we have to establish if only one call was made,was how Jeremy was supposed to have returned to Goldhanger from WHF in order to make that call.
Why do we need to establish that?
-
Because if it is said that only one person ( Jeremy ) allegedly made the two calls,one at WHF and the other from his home,how would he have got home in such a short space of time without 4 wheels ?
-
Because if it is said that only one person ( Jeremy ) allegedly made the two calls,one at WHF and the other from his home,how would he have got home in such a short space of time without 4 wheels ?
There was only one call, not two.
-
I'm not interested in the one call. What I do want to know is how he managed to get from one place to the other ( 3 odd miles away ) in 10 minutes without a " proper " mode of transport.
-
I'm not interested in the one call. What I do want to know is how he managed to get from one place to the other ( 3 odd miles away ) in 10 minutes without a " proper " mode of transport.
Why would it have to be 10 minutes?
-
lookout how do we know what was the exact time he left WHF?
-
We don't.Everything we discuss is supposition anyway,and not the true facts of the case. It's only our own personal opinions.
For all any of us know,Jeremy might never have left WHF at all.
-
When I first came on to the forum,it was one of many questions that I'd asked.Proof of him leaving the farmhouse.We have none,do we ?
-
lookout think he had to return his car to his house so the neighbours would say it never moved all night then he went back to the farm I would think as Caroline suggested then walked back home through the fields where he would have no chance of being seen.
-
When I first came on to the forum,it was one of many questions that I'd asked.Proof of him leaving the farmhouse.We have none,do we ?
We do because he changed his clothes and his car was outside. He also asked West if the police car would pick him up on route to WHF.
-
There were definately two calls made to police...
The contents of PC Wests 3.26,am phone log were problematic to the prosecution / police case, for the following legal reasons, depending upon who the caller was. (Ralph or Jeremy) - hence why one of zhe most astonishing deceptions in criminal proceedings was acted out, without revealing the full contents of Wests 3.26am phone log...
I can tell you, that the only detail mentioned contained in his log, was the time (3.26am), which when added to the contents of Bonnetts phone log (3.36am) produced a false scenario for the jury to condider, this being a question abour the timing of the call having been made 10 minutes earlier than that recorded by Bonnett (3.36am) in the other phone log....
-
In a nutshell, one version of what Jeremy allegedly said to Bonnett, with a question of whether Bonnett may have mistakenly recorded the time (3.36am), wrong by 10 minutes, meaning the call had been made at 3.26am...
If the full contents of both phone logs had been disclosed, it would have opened up a can of worms, and been subject of lengthy legal Arguments, involving, HEARSAY, and ALIBI...
-
Maybe now the campaign team or his legal team can enlighten Jeremy by showing him this topic and clue him in on the OBVIOUS by showing him the work you've done?
I think failure to accept what the log actually contains is failure to admit the truth and shows a dis-honest campaign team a dis-honest legal team and a dis-honest Bamber.
You have no basis for suggesting that his legal team have been dishonest.
-
You have no basis for suggesting that his legal team have been dishonest.
Trying to promote the log shown in court as a call from Neville is dishonest, no matter who is promoting it. If Jeremy is then he is getting poor advice.
-
Trying to promote the log shown in court as a call from Neville is dishonest, no matter who is promoting it. If Jeremy is then he is getting poor advice.
This has not formed part of any legal submissions.
-
This has not formed part of any legal submissions.
I know. I didn't say it had, but it is being promoted as a call from Neville.
Maybe you could comment your opinion on it, or Caroline's conclusions?
-
We do because he changed his clothes and his car was outside. He also asked West if the police car would pick him up on route to WHF.
He'd have had a change of clothes at the farmhouse having lived there. Old clothes would have burned quickly in the AGA------------hence the red hot poker ( Nevilles' injuries ?)
Yes,we know he asked to be picked up.Couldn't it have been a ploy to make it look as though he'd been at home all night ?
-
Oh,these prosecutors are slow ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maybe now the campaign team or his legal team can enlighten Jeremy by showing him this topic and clue him in on the OBVIOUS by showing him the work you've done?
I think failure to accept what the log actually contains is failure to admit the truth and shows a dis-honest campaign team a dis-honest legal team and a dis-honest Bamber.
To be fair (and NGB may well correct me), whilst the campaign team are quite clearly promoting outright lies and fantasy, I don't believe it is the currently appointed legal teams responsibility to correct them.
A legal professional obviously has a responsibility towards their clients best interests, but I wouldn't say that automatically makes them dishonest. A legal professional can represent somebody, regardless as to their personal beliefs towards his guilt or innocence, can't they? ???
-
To be fair (and NGB may well correct me), whilst the campaign team are quite clearly promoting outright lies and fantasy, I don't believe it is the currently appointed legal teams responsibility to correct them.
A legal professional obviously has a responsibility towards their clients best interests, but I wouldn't say that automatically makes them dishonest. A legal professional can represent somebody, regardless as to their personal beliefs towards his guilt or innocence, can't they? ???
Point being their responsibility towards Jeremy should be to stop him damaging the perception of his own case and promoting the call (amongst other things) as fact when they are known fiction is damaging.
I do find it strange the campaign team and the legal team seem to be exclusively seperate. But when you have a campaign team and an official website promoting lies it makes all parties involved look bad.
-
Point being their responsibility towards Jeremy should be to stop him damaging the perception of his own case and promoting the call (amongst other things) as fact when they are known fiction is damaging.
I do find it strange the campaign team and the legal team seem to be exclusively seperate. But when you have a campaign team and an official website promoting lies it makes all parties involved look bad.
I'm not sure of the setup. :-\
-
There were definately two calls made to police...
The contents of PC Wests 3.26,am phone log were problematic to the prosecution / police case, for the following legal reasons, depending upon who the caller was. (Ralph or Jeremy) - hence why one of zhe most astonishing deceptions in criminal proceedings was acted out, without revealing the full contents of Wests 3.26am phone log...
I can tell you, that the only detail mentioned contained in his log, was the time (3.26am), which when added to the contents of Bonnetts phone log (3.36am) produced a false scenario for the jury to condider, this being a question abour the timing of the call having been made 10 minutes earlier than that recorded by Bonnett (3.36am) in the other phone log....
Hi Mike,
It's Bonnet's log that its timed as 03:26 and Wests is 03:36. However, if you're suggesting that Neville did call the police at either 03:26 or 03:36, this is even more problematic for the timing of events. Jeremy said he got a call from Neville at 03:10 - so you would imagine that Neville would call the police (using the emergency number) either before, or 'straight' after his call to Jeremy (although I see no reason to call Jeremy if he's called the police). However, if he called at 03:26 - that's a full 16 minutes of dong what? And why would the phone be engaged if he didn't call the police until 16 minutes later? If he called at 3:36, that's even longer. It's also problematic because the phone was engaged when both Jeremy and West called the WHF number. Too much of a coincidence that the number would be engaged on both occasions if Neville were alive and well during all this phoning?
It also still doesn't answer why such a call would be kept secret - there is no threat to national security in releasing the contents of Neville's call for help after his daughter had gone berserk with a gun. Everyone already knew that anyway! Stan Jones would have known about such a call so Taff would have no reason to try and convince him that Jeremy was innocent - he'd have known.
-
I know. I didn't say it had, but it is being promoted as a call from Neville.
Maybe you could comment your opinion on it, or Caroline's conclusions?
But you did say his legal team were dishonest, in the context of the alleged call from Neville. Will you now withdraw your suggestion that the legal team are/were dishonest?
-
To be fair (and NGB may well correct me), whilst the campaign team are quite clearly promoting outright lies and fantasy, I don't believe it is the currently appointed legal teams responsibility to correct them.
It is not, you are correct.
A legal professional obviously has a responsibility towards their clients best interests, but I wouldn't say that automatically makes them dishonest. A legal professional can represent somebody, regardless as to their personal beliefs towards his guilt or innocence, can't they? ???
Yes they can, again you are correct.
-
But you did say his legal team were dishonest, in the context of the alleged call from Neville. Will you now withdraw your suggestion that the legal team are/were dishonest?
I don't think you've understood the post I made, shown below.
Maybe now the campaign team or his legal team can enlighten Jeremy by showing him this topic and clue him in on the OBVIOUS by showing him the work you've done?
I think failure to accept what the log actually contains is failure to admit the truth and shows a dis-honest campaign team a dis-honest legal team and a dis-honest Bamber.
I'm saying now that it is evidently clear what the document shows - maybe this can be now explained to Jeremy. Once that has happened failure to then accept what is clearly shown in the document would make all parties invovled come across as dishonest.
-
I don't think you've understood the post I made, shown below.
I'm saying now that it is evidently clear what the document shows - maybe this can be now explained to Jeremy. Once that has happened failure to then accept what is clearly shown in the document would make all parties invovled come across as dishonest.
I have understood your post clearly. You referred to "his dishonest legal team". I pointed out that his legal team have not referred to a call by Nevill to the police. Your reference to dishonesty is therefore, even on your premise that the call did not take place, completely unfounded. Will you now withdraw it?
-
No.
I've made it clear that what you're saying I said isn't what I said or meant. :o
If they show Bamber the documents and explain to him what they are - and still it is promoted by anyone involved with Bamber - then it makes everyone look dishonest - but that hasn't happened which is why I said IF they show and IF it is still promoted as something it isn't.
Instead of trying to get me to withdraw something I have not said it would make more sense for you and those around Jeremy to get him to withdraw his untrue claim that the document shows a call from his father.
-
I have understood your post clearly. You referred to "his dishonest legal team". I pointed out that his legal team have not referred to a call by Nevill to the police. Your reference to dishonesty is therefore, even on your premise that the call did not take place, completely unfounded. Will you now withdraw it?
There is, or has been, some sort of synergy between the legal team(s) and the Campaign Team, that appears obvious due to the Campaign Teams access to legal documents.
Therefore it is not unreasonable for a person to think that the legal team endorses the Campaign Teams allegations and propaganda in some manner.
Whilst I won't ask you to agree, I think it's quite apparent that the Campaign Team are propagating lies and falsehoods. It would not be inappropriate to describe their 'antics' as being dishonest, even if those responsible for the Campaign Team had been manipulated or brainwashed.
Bearing the above in mind, I can understand why Mat may consider the legal team to have had a role in the Campaign Teams dishonesty. If indeed that is the conclusion that Mat has come to.
It's not a position that I subscribe to, but I can understand why some people may do so.
It isn't the legal teams responsibility to keep the Campaign Team in check, that is clear, but given the apparent communication between the two groups, it is, to a lay person, difficult to distinguish one from the other.
-
There is, or has been, some sort of synergy between the legal team(s) and the Campaign Team, that appears obvious due to the Campaign Teams access to legal documents.
Therefore it is not unreasonable for a person to think that the legal team endorses the Campaign Teams allegations and propaganda in some manner.
Whilst I won't ask you to agree, I think it's quite apparent that the Campaign Team are propagating lies and falsehoods. It would not be inappropriate to describe their 'antics' as being dishonest, even if those responsible for the Campaign Team had been manipulated or brainwashed.
Bearing the above in mind, I can understand why Mat may consider the legal team to have had a role in the Campaign Teams dishonesty. If indeed that is the conclusion that Mat has come to.
It's not a position that I subscribe to, but I can understand why some people may do so.
It isn't the legal teams responsibility to keep the Campaign Team in check, that is clear, but given the apparent communication between the two groups, it is, to a lay person, difficult to distinguish one from the other.
I am surprised you take that position Harters. I think you may misunderstand the relationship which has existed between the campaign team and Jeremy's legal team.
-
I am surprised you take that position Harters. I think you may misunderstand the relationship which has existed between the campaign team and Jeremy's legal team.
I think you may have misunderstood NGB, I don't know anything about the current relationship and do not intend to suggest in any way anything untoward.
However, legal teams of the past have certainly acted in a less than professional manner, endorsing fantasy and lies. The GDS era sticks out most prominently.
I am not surprised that people think the current legal team endorse and control the Campaign team.
The 'Official' Campaign Team.
-
I think you may have misunderstood NGB, I don't know anything about the current relationship and do not intend to suggest in any way anything untoward.
However, legal teams of the past have certainly acted in a less than professional manner, endorsing fantasy and lies. The GDS era sticks out most prominently.
I am not surprised that people think the current legal team endorse and control the Campaign team.
The 'Official' Campaign Team.
I agree with you about GDS. That episode did the defence no favours.
-
How does the legal team view the Campaign team?
What if any communication takes place?
-
In fact that's not fair, it's a bit of a leading question that you shouldn't really be expected to answer. :-[
-
How does the legal team view the Campaign team?
What if any communication takes place?
The campaign team manage the case documents and have catalogued and indexed them all. The lawyers who have been involved have had the assistance of the campaign team in providing copies of documents and images.
I cannot speak for any of the lawyers who have been involved in relation to their attitude towards the campaign team.
-
The campaign team manage the case documents and have catalogued and indexed them all. The lawyers who have been involved have had the assistance of the campaign team in providing copies of documents and images.
I cannot speak for any of the lawyers who have been involved in relation to their attitude towards the campaign team.
Oh okay, I didn't realise they were the ones in control of the documents, I just assumed it was the legal team.
That makes it even more difficult to criticise them, if their assistance is required.
-
Jeremy said he got a call from Neville at 03:10 - so you would imagine that Neville would call the police . . . either before, or 'straight' after his call to Jeremy . . . However, if he called at 03:26 - that's a full 16 minutes of dong what? And why would the phone be engaged if he didn't call the police until 16 minutes later?
As already pointed out to you, the time of 3:10 that Jeremy gave may well be incorrect, in which case these issues needn't arise.
. . . there is no threat to national security in releasing the contents of Neville's call for help after his daughter had gone berserk with a gun. Everyone already knew that anyway!
Not everyone knew Nevill had called as well as Jeremy. It's clear that Stan Jones didn't know at first. It seems that very few officers considered Jeremy guilty initially, but numerous details were suppressed anyway to cover up the bungling of the raid teams. Later, it wasn't clear how the relatives could be convinced that Jeremy was innocent without very awkward questions arising about what the raid teams did. It's known that SB got involved, and SB are very prone to secrecy at all times. If there was just one call to the police, how come Pc West just told Jeremy that a car from Witham was on its way? That wouldn't be odd if he'd just arranged it, but car CA07 was despatched by Bonnet according to Bonnett's statement.
-
As already pointed out to you, the time of 3:10 that Jeremy gave may well be incorrect, in which case these issues needn't arise.
I think he must have had a pretty good idea so five mins either way - still doesn't work, what was Neville doing between phoning Jeremy and calling the police later and why would he leave the phone off the hook twice?
Not everyone knew Nevill had called as well as Jeremy. It's clear that Stan Jones didn't know at first. It seems that very few officers considered Jeremy guilty initially, but numerous details were suppressed anyway to cover up the bungling of the raid teams. Later, it wasn't clear how the relatives could be convinced that Jeremy was innocent without very awkward questions arising about what the raid teams did. It's known that SB got involved, and SB are very prone to secrecy at all times. If there was just one call to the police, how come Pc West just told Jeremy that a car from Witham was on its way? That wouldn't be odd if he'd just arranged it, but car CA07 was despatched by Bonnet according to Bonnett's statement.
Quite simple, tell them about Neville's called - no need to mention anything about the raid team.
-
I think the police asserted that they had been called at 3:26am, and possibly also suggested that Julie had been called at 3:15, causing Jeremy to give an earlier time for Nevill's call than he would otherwise have done. It seems he hadn't checked the time early on, and so had to go by what the police were telling him.
The problem with revealing Nevill's call was that attention would then shift to the apparent staging of Sheila's body.
-
I think the police asserted that they had been called at 3:26am, and possibly also suggested that Julie had been called at 3:15, causing Jeremy to give an earlier time for Nevill's call than he would otherwise have done. It seems he hadn't checked the time early on, and so had to go by what the police were telling him.
The problem with revealing Nevill's call was that attention would then shift to the apparent staging of Sheila's body.
We're going to have to disagree on the call times Reader, whatever way you look at it, it doesn't fit. It seems the story is being changed in order to make the pieces fit and if you have to force them the picture gets distorted.
I see absolutely no reason why revealing Neville's call would reveal anything other than Neville called and an innocent Jeremy. The two simply don't go together.
-
In your opinion, who arranged for car CA07 to go to WHF, Pc West or Malcolm Bonnett?
-
In your opinion, who arranged for car CA07 to go to WHF, Pc West or Malcolm Bennett?
Malcolm Bonnet
-
In your opinion, who arranged for car CA05 to go to WHF, Pc West or Malcolm Bonnett?
-
In your opinion, who arranged for car CA05 to go to WHF, Pc West or Malcolm Bennett?
Bonnet specifically mentions that CA07 was initiated by him but also adds other cars were sent so they may have been sent in response to either West or Bonnet or as a result of both.
-
In your opinion, who arranged for car CA05 to go to WHF, Pc West or Malcolm Bennett?
Surely you mean Bonnett? ;D
-
Yes, I've corrected the spelling.
Pc West testified that he spoke to the HQIR to find out initially where Tolleshunt D'Arcy was covered from and what was the nearest and most available police unit to send to that address. He testified that he was told it was policed by Witham and that he then contacted Witham.
Q Did you tell them what you had been told? A. Yes, I spoke to an officer on the personal radio link between ourselves and Witham Police Station relayed the message that I had received from Mr. Bamber in order that they could respond to it.
Does that sound like Witham had already done the same thing at the behest of Bonnett at HQIR? If Bonnett told Pc West that Witham policed Tolleshunt D'Arcy so that Pc West could contact Witham, why would Bonnett promptly contact Witham himself to do the same thing that he knew that Pc West intended to do?
-
Yes, I've corrected the spelling.
Pc West testified that he spoke to the HQIR to find out initially where Tolleshunt D'Arcy was covered from and what was the nearest and most available police unit to send to that address. He testified that he was told it was policed by Witham and that he then contacted Witham.
Q Did you tell them what you had been told? A. Yes, I spoke to an officer on the personal radio link between ourselves and Witham Police Station relayed the message that I had received from Mr. Bamber in order that they could respond to it.
Does that sound like Witham had already done the same thing at the behest of Bonnett at HQIR? If Bonnett told Pc West that Witham policed Tolleshunt D'Arcy so that Pc West could contact Witham, why would Bonnett promptly contact Witham himself to do the same thing that he knew that Pc West intended to do?
He didn't say why he wanted to know who policed THD, he just asked him the question and Bonnett is very specific about which car was initiated by him. I see absolutely no mystery here.
-
Asking the question, which included asking about the availability of cars, strongly suggests the intention to contact them to send a car.
-
Asking the question, which included asking about the availability of cars, strongly suggests the intention to contact them to send a car.
It does to you in hindsight but there is no reason why Bonnett would think that. West mentions nothing about which cars were sent as a result of his call, Bonnett does (CA07). More than one car turned up, and one of them was CA07 that must have been initiated by Bonnett and the others by West. Like I said, no mystery.
-
Did you mean "others", as distinct from "other"? Pc West didn't explicitly state which car was sent as a result of his conversation with an officer at Witham, but if Witham told him that car CA07 had already been sent due to information from HQIR, and that another car, CA05, would also be attending the scene, one would expect Pc West to mention both in his evidence. There's nothing to suggest Pc West instigated the sending of any other car. He stated he made only two calls (HQIR and Witham).
-
Did you mean "others", as distinct from "other"? Pc West didn't explicitly state which car was sent as a result of his conversation with an officer at Witham, but if Witham told him that car CA07 had already been sent due to information from HQIR, and that another car, CA05, would also be attending the scene, one would expect Pc West to mention both in his evidence. There's nothing to suggest Pc West instigated the sending of any other car. He stated he made only two calls (HQIR and Witham).
Reading BOTH statements again, West does indeed state which car he sent - CA5
-
There is quite a big a problem in trying to pass off Bonnett's log as a call from Neville. It's a mistake that relates to both logs, one which Jeremy made in that he couldn't remember his sisters married name (which is odd). BOTH logs refer to Sheila as 'Sheila Bamber' and not Caffell. This along with everything else shows that both logs refer to Jeremy's call - to argue otherwise, is just denial.
-
There is quite a big a problem in trying to pass off Bonnett's log as a call from Neville. It's a mistake that relates to both logs, one which Jeremy made in that he couldn't remember his sisters married name (which is odd). BOTH logs refer to Sheila as 'Sheila Bamber' and not Caffell. This along with everything else shows that both logs refer to Jeremy's call - to argue otherwise, is just denial.
(http://s28.postimg.org/8zikeeifx/westsheilab.jpg)
all of the information obtained by West from Jeremy is also on Bonnett's sheet including the phone number.
It is readily apparent West messed up in saying he spoke to the Witham dispatcher and told them everything, he obviously told Bonnett everything because Bonnett says so and his log backs such up.
Jeremy supporters are being extremely devious in that they want to assert that Bonnett's log establishes a call from Nevill and yet they say to ignore all references to Sheila and Jeremy that hose were added later. So they are saying the log can't be trusted and that the log proves their claims in the same breath.
Nevill calling Bonnett before Jeremy called West would have resulted in Bonnett telling West he already knew about the situation because he spoke to Nevill himself which in turn West would have relayed to Jeremy.
Furthermore, it is hard enough to imagine Sheila giving Nevill enough time to call Jeremy. Where was she supposedly that Nevill even had time to call police as well? Worse yet why would he call Jeremy at all if he planned to call police within 2 seconds of hanging up on Jeremy?
The more you look at it the more the claim falls apart which is why not even many Jeremy supporters bother making the allegation.
-
(http://s28.postimg.org/8zikeeifx/westsheilab.jpg)
all of the information obtained by West from Jeremy is also on Bonnett's sheet including the phone number.
It is readily apparent West messed up in saying he spoke to the Witham dispatcher and told them everything, he obviously told Bonnett everything because Bonnett says so and his log backs such up.
Jeremy supporters are being extremely devious in that they want to assert that Bonnett's log establishes a call from Nevill and yet they say to ignore all references to Sheila and Jeremy that hose were added later. So they are saying the log can't be trusted and that the log proves their claims in the same breath.
Nevill calling Bonnett before Jeremy called West would have resulted in Bonnett telling West he already knew about the situation because he spoke to Nevill himself which in turn West would have relayed to Jeremy.
Furthermore, it is hard enough to imagine Sheila giving Nevill enough time to call Jeremy. Where was she supposedly that Nevill even had time to call police as well? Worse yet why would he call Jeremy at all if he planned to call police within 2 seconds of hanging up on Jeremy?
The more you look at it the more the claim falls apart which is why not even many Jeremy supporters bother making the allegation.
Why do you insist on undermining the fact that Jeremy could be innocent ?
I'm STILL aware that Neville rang the police after having rang Jeremy. Neville would NATURALLY have been in a blind panic ( as anyone would have been ) as initially,before Sheila meant business,he'd possibly thought that Jeremy would have been of assistance.
There were three flights of stairs, so timewise,it would have given Neville the chance to phone while Sheila was upstairs. In such a situation as was,you have to put yourself in the shoes of those deciding what to do for the best. It must have been horrendous for Neville.
The same as Jeremy forgetting his sisters' name,for Christs' sake,it's not every morning you're awakened suddenly with news like that so he was totally unprepared for what was about to follow. This " confusion " had been treated like a crime,as did every movement,etc that Jeremy had made throughout the whole investigation. Vilification at its worst !!
-
I'm STILL aware that Neville rang the police after having rang Jeremy
You obviously lack the ability to understand a word you've read in this topic.
What are you basing the phone call to the police off? Because it can't be the document - that clearly says what it is showing and it isn't a phone call from Neville. So what is you're evidence or are you making things up and there is NO evidence? Yeah thought so.
-
You obviously lack the ability to understand a word you've read in this topic.
What are you basing the phone call to the police off? Because it can't be the document - that clearly says what it is showing and it isn't a phone call from Neville. So what is you're evidence or are you making things up and there is NO evidence? Yeah thought so.
I'm basing the call on my own intuition.You don't mind,do you ? Apologies for being different from anyone else,but that's not a crime too,is it ? I'm not going to be drawn into your nasty web of insults and abuse,so take it out on somebody else for a change.
I happen to be an individual with my OWN views--------not a bloody sheep.
-
I'm basing the call on my own tuition.You don't mind,do you ? Apologies for being different from anyone else,but that's not a crime too,is it ? I'm not going to be drawn into your nasty web of insults and abuse,so take it out on somebody else for a change.
I happen to be an individual with my OWN views--------not a bloody sheep.
It's just strange that your own tuition is favoured over actual proof.
-
It's just strange that your own tuition is favoured over actual proof.
It HAS been known to work.
-
Why do you insist on undermining the fact that Jeremy could be innocent ?
It is not a fact he could be innocent. The evidence proving his guilt is beyond reproach which is why he will rot in prison till the day he dies. The notion Sheila killed everyone without getitng any of their blood or GSR on her clothing and body is absurd and she can't have killed herself and then moved her body flat, put the mdoerator away and stuck the bible in a pool of blood that formed after her death. It is a pip dream that Jeremy is innocent. From your behavior one would think he was married to you or that you have a crush on him. You remind me of the guys smitten with Jodi arias who insist she is innocent.
I'm STILL aware that Neville rang the police after having rang Jeremy. Neville would NATURALLY have been in a blind panic ( as anyone would have been ) as initially,before Sheila meant business,he'd possibly thought that Jeremy would have been of assistance.
There were three flights of stairs, so timewise,it would have given Neville the chance to phone while Sheila was upstairs. In such a situation as was,you have to put yourself in the shoes of those deciding what to do for the best. It must have been horrendous for Neville.
The same as Jeremy forgetting his sisters' name,for Christs' sake,it's not every morning you're awakened suddenly with news like that so he was totally unprepared for what was about to follow. This " confusion " had been treated like a crime,as did every movement,etc that Jeremy had made throughout the whole investigation. Vilification at its worst !!
You are not aware that Nevill phoned police, you are baselessly alleging he phoned the police. You allegation is baseless because there is no evidence at all to support the suggestion. The suppsed evidence is a log which say Jeremy called police. The allegation is that this log was doctored and originally indicated that Nevill called. Anyone can make allegations people lied and things were doctored, just making the allegation is not proof the allegation is true.
The point about Jeremy forgetting Sheila's last name is that it is further proof that Bonnet's log was from information obtained by West from Jeremy. Bonnet's log contained Sheila Bamber like West's log.
Asd for putting myself in Nevill's alleged position:
1) Given my size and also my belief that she would not know she needed to chamber a round let alone how I would simply have disarmed her.
2) if I were too scared to do so but were left alone I would arm myself with a gun or a knive or something else to disarm her with. As a practical matter it is rather easy to disarm someone who has a rifle. When they are close to you it is easy to be able to knock the gun away from you so it is not aimed at you then to grab it. It is much harder when someone has a handgun because they can shoot you are close distance. A rifle can't be fired at someone who is right on top of you.
3) If panicked you call 999 not your child to put your child in harms way.
If truly worried you don't wait for help though because it could take too long you try to disarm her not only to save yourself but save your family. She went roaming around the house with a gun but instead of trying to jump her and save my family I just call Jeremy?
Maybe you should take your own advice and try contemplating what someone would actually do in such situation and what one would do in Jeremy's position had his claims been true. Teh asnwer is not what Jeremy actually did.
-
Reading BOTH statements again, West does indeed state which car he sent - CA5
Pc West's log mentions both cars (with some details of the occupants of car CA07), but doesn't state which he sent. In his evidence at trial, he doesn't mention CA05, he just says he spoke to Witham and they relayed the information, etc.
all of the information obtained by West from Jeremy is also on Bonnett's sheet including the phone number.
Where is Jeremy's telephone number in Bonnett's log?
-
Pc West's log mentions both cars (with some details of the occupants of car CA07), but doesn't state which he sent. In his evidence at trial, he doesn't mention CA05, he just says he spoke to Witham and they relayed the information, etc.
Where is Jeremy's telephone number in Bonnett's log?
And? I still don't know what point you're making? However, if you're still claiming that there were two calls; if one log is Jeremy's and one Neville's - why do both state Sheila's name as 'Bamber'? Jeremy couldn't remember her married name and this carries over in the translation to Bonnet or do you believe they would both forget her married name was Caffell?
-
Only Pc West gave details of that. We don't know whether Nevill forgot or whether he simply thought of Sheila as Sheila Bamber, given that she was no longer with Colin.
According to Pc West's log, Jeremy's father had said, "Please come over your sister has gone crazy & has the gun." In contrast, Bonnett's log gives the wording "daughter Sheila Bamber, aged 26 yrs has got hold of one of my guns" and makes no mention of Jeremy being asked to come over.
-
Only Pc West gave details of that. We don't know whether Nevill forgot or whether he simply thought of Sheila as Sheila Bamber, given that she was no longer with Colin.
According to Pc West's log, Jeremy's father had said, "Please come over your sister has gone crazy & has the gun." In contrast, Bonnett's log gives the wording "daughter Sheila Bamber, aged 26 yrs has got hold of one of my guns" and makes no mention of Jeremy being asked to come over.
Why would it? It wasn't relevant, just the details of the victim would be required. I'm sorry your explanation of why both logs mention Bamber and not Caffell, just doesn't wash. People complain that various aspects of the case can't all be down to mistakes by EP but play the mistake card when things don't fit their own argument.
-
I didn't say Bonnett made a mistake about Sheila's surname. I suggested Nevill may not have said Caffell in the first place.
-
I didn't say Bonnett made a mistake about Sheila's surname. I suggested Nevill may not have said Caffell in the first place.
The logs are what they are, I see no conspiracy. One call from Jeremy, relayed to Bonnet.
-
In your opinion, how did the occupants of car CA07 get to know that Jeremy Bamber had been asked to meet them at WHF?
-
In your opinion, how did the occupants of car CA07 get to know that Jeremy Bamber had been asked to meet them at WHF?
When he turned up I expect.
-
Pc West's log mentions both cars (with some details of the occupants of car CA07), but doesn't state which he sent. In his evidence at trial, he doesn't mention CA05, he just says he spoke to Witham and they relayed the information, etc.
Where is Jeremy's telephone number in Bonnett's log?
he sent CA7 while West sent CA5.
West gave Bonnett Nevill's number so they could call there. Calling Jeremy would do little good.
Here is West admitting he got Nevill's number from Jeremy
(http://s12.postimg.org/4e4d5am4t/westphone.jpg)
-
he sent CA7 while West sent CA5.
West gave Bonnett Nevill's number so they could call there. Calling Jeremy would do little good.
Here is West admitting he got Nevill's number from Jeremy
(http://s12.postimg.org/4e4d5am4t/westphone.jpg)
I've already mentioned that - I fear we're still going in circles though.
-
Only Pc West gave details of that. We don't know whether Nevill forgot or whether he simply thought of Sheila as Sheila Bamber, given that she was no longer with Colin.
According to Pc West's log, Jeremy's father had said, "Please come over your sister has gone crazy & has the gun." In contrast, Bonnett's log gives the wording "daughter Sheila Bamber, aged 26 yrs has got hold of one of my guns" and makes no mention of Jeremy being asked to come over.
Your whole desperate case hinges on the fact that West and Bonnett use different words thouhg meaning the same thing. Your suggestion that they should precisely mirror one anothe ris silly. Not even the documents written by West mirror one another. Bonnett was trying to be completely professional in his wording and tried to mimick what Nevill supposedly told Jeremy while West was just paraphrasing.
Trying to suggest that means Nevill called Bonnett and that bonnett doctored the log later and lied about not receiving a call from Nevill is absurd. Not onyl do you have no evidence your claims make no sense.
Caroline has posed a challenge to you and others making such claim. It is a simple challenge. Explain why EP woudl not have made anoyne else aware of a call being received by Nevill during the firs tmonth of the investigation when they though Sheila committed th emurders. You can't because they would have told Jeremy and the rest of the family and DCI Jones woudl have been shouting it from the rooftops anytime someone suggested Jeremy did it.
You have no leg to stand on at all.
-
I've already mentioned that - I fear we're still going in circles though.
But he has to see it with his own eyes. He probably sitll won't face relaity but he has to shut up on that issue at least.
Take note that he didn't mention his nephews in listing who was in the house, that is interesting.
-
But he has to see it with his own eyes. He probably sitll won't face relaity but he has to shut up on that issue at least.
Take note that he didn't mention his nephews in listing who was in the house, that is interesting.
You're right, that is interesting - denial?
-
Scipio: "Take note that he didn't mention his nephews in listing who was in the house, that is interesting."
Sometimes the most interesting things are in what is not said - this gave me a chill actually; but then, it could be PC West who forgot, or the officer writing it down.
They weren´t exactly accurate - and THAT will be difficult to contradict, given the nature of this thread! :P :P ;D
-
Trying to suggest that means Nevill called Bonnett and that Bonnett doctored the log later and lied about not receiving a call from Nevill is absurd.
I'm not suggesting that Nevill called Bonnett, but that Nevill, possibly after getting no reply from Witham, telephoned Pc West. As Nevill didn't dial 999, the situation hadn't yet become a full-scale emergency from his point of view. Pc West was not asked whether Nevill called him before Jeremy did, so he didn't explicitly lie about that. However, I think he probably lied about not being able to recall certain things that Jeremy had said to him. I didn't claim Bonnett 'doctored' his log later; I'm suggesting he later added one sentence relating to Jeremy's call to Pc West. If Bonnett also completed a separate log sheet in respect of Jeremy's call to Pc West, EP have kept quiet about that sheet. It's clear from Mr Rivlin's questioning of Pc West at Jeremy's trial that Mr Rivlin was aware in some detail of what Jeremy told Pc West, but hadn't seen Bonnett's log.
What you (scipio_usmc) also posted was that all of the information obtained by West from Jeremy is also on Bonnett's sheet including the phone number.
Bonnett logged the WHF number, but not Jeremy's number, so not all of what Jeremy had told Pc West was also on Bonnett's sheet.
When he turned up I expect.
In his statement, Pc Myall refers to when Jeremy reached WHF: "At this time we were standing by the Police vehicle awaiting the arrival of Mr Jeremy Bamber who had been asked to meet us at White House Farm." Hence Pc Myall already knew that Jeremy had been asked to meet them. In your opinion, how did Pc Myall get to know in advance of Jeremy's arrival that Jeremy had been asked to meet them at WHF?
-
I'm not suggesting that Nevill called Bonnett, but that Nevill, possibly after getting no reply from Witham, telephoned Pc West. As Nevill didn't dial 999, the situation hadn't yet become a full-scale emergency from his point of view. Pc West was not asked whether Nevill called him before Jeremy did, so he didn't explicitly lie about that. However, I think he probably lied about not being able to recall certain things that Jeremy had said to him. I didn't claim Bonnett 'doctored' his log later; I'm suggesting he later added one sentence relating to Jeremy's call to Pc West. If Bonnett also completed a separate log sheet in respect of Jeremy's call to Pc West, EP have kept quiet about that sheet. It's clear from Mr Rivlin's questioning of Pc West at Jeremy's trial that Mr Rivlin was aware in some detail of what Jeremy told Pc West, but hadn't seen Bonnett's log.
What you (scipio_usmc) also posted was that all of the information obtained by West from Jeremy is also on Bonnett's sheet including the phone number.
Bonnett logged the WHF number, but not Jeremy's number, so not all of what Jeremy had told Pc West was also on Bonnett's sheet.
In his statement, Pc Myall refers to when Jeremy reached WHF: "At this time we were standing by the Police vehicle awaiting the arrival of Mr Jeremy Bamber who had been asked to meet us at White House Farm." Hence Pc Myall already knew that Jeremy had been asked to meet them. In your opinion, how did Pc Myall get to know in advance of Jeremy's arrival that Jeremy had been asked to meet them at WHF?
OK, I'm lost now are you suggesting that both called Witham? Both didn't get an answer, both spoke to PC West? Who spoke to West first IYO? Why would Bonnett need Jeremy's number? He was interested in the site where a crime may be underway and the details of the possible victim.
I have no idea who informed CA7 - I also don't see the relevance given that they were able to communicate via radio with both police and HQ.
-
There are several police assertions that Jeremy said he tried dialling Witham, but Jeremy doesn't confirm doing so in his statements and it seems he doesn't recall doing so or telling any officer that he did.
I'm suggesting Nevill called Pc West at 03:26 before Jeremy did so at 03:36, and that his log of that call has been withheld. It's possible that Nevill tried to call Witham first (and mentioned that he'd done so to Pc West) and Jeremy didn't.
I am aware that Bonnett didn't need to log Jeremy's telephone number. What scipio_usmc stated was that Bonnett's log includes all the information that Pc West obtained from Jereny, which isn't the case.
Pc West makes no mention of CA07 being told by him that he would ask, or had asked, Jeremy to meet them at WHF.
-
Wasn't Nevilles' call kept silent in case Jeremy had gone to WHF,himself,and ended up dead ? Would this have been the original reason for 6 body-bags ?
The police thinking that Jeremy would have taken off under his own steam.
-
There are several police assertions that Jeremy said he tried dialling Witham, but Jeremy doesn't confirm doing so in his statements and it seems he doesn't recall doing so or telling any officer that he did.
I'm suggesting Nevill called Pc West at 03:26 before Jeremy did so at 03:36, and that his log of that call has been withheld. It's possible that Nevill tried to call Witham first (and mentioned that he'd done so to Pc West) and Jeremy didn't.
I am aware that Bonnett didn't need to log Jeremy's telephone number. What scipio_usmc stated was that Bonnett's log includes all the information that Pc West obtained from Jereny, which isn't the case.
Pc West makes no mention of CA07 being told by him that he would ask, or had asked, Jeremy to meet them at WHF.
The police who say he told them that he called Witham first were West and the police who he spoke with At THE SCENE prior to the house being raided.
Why would West and police at the scene assert he told them he called Witham first unless he said such? Why would that suggest that Nevill called Witham?
Your claims don't make any sense.
Has Nevill spoke to West himself then West would have told Jeremy such when he spoke to Jeremy and would have reacted from Nevill's call. The same way that this morning when I called to say there was a bear in the woods near the local high school that police told me they were already aware of it and had been alerted by someone else so were already taking care of it. I figured they should know so that kids did not go play gym outside without being foreawarned.
-
I doubt it, lookout, as he was asked to go there very early on.
Caroline, you are claiming that Bonnett sent car CA07 because he said so in his statement. However, Pc Saxby's statement says "I received a message over my personal radio, from Chelmsford Police Station . . .", and makes no mention of Bonnett or HQIR, except for saying later (after PS Bews, Pc Myall and Jeremy came running back from the farmhouse) that Ps Bews contacted the Information Room to request armed assistance and give a situation report.
-
I doubt it, lookout, as he was asked to go there very early on.
Caroline, you are claiming that Bonnett sent car CA07 because he said so in his statement. However, Pc Saxby's statement says "I received a message over my personal radio, from Chelmsford Police Station . . .", and makes no mention of Bonnett or HQIR, except for saying later (after PS Bews, Pc Myall and Jeremy came running back from the farmhouse) that Ps Bews contacted the Information Room to request armed assistance and give a situation report.
Which could just as easily mean from Chelmsford HQ because both were referred to as Chelmsford police station and often required asking officers to specify which they were referring to.
-
Which could just as easily mean from Chelmsford HQ because both were referred to as Chelmsford police station and often required asking officers to specify which they were referring to.
Exactly, just waiting for the next "ah but ....." ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
As far as I know, no officer corrected himself after saying "Chelmsford Police Station". Pc West was asked in court where the police station was for the benefit of the jury, who might not have realized that the station and the police HQ were entirely separate buildings.
-
As far as I know, no officer corrected himself after saying "Chelmsford Police Station". Pc West was asked in court where the police station was for the benefit of the jury, who might not have realized that the station and the police HQ were entirely separate buildings.
In the COLP interviews anytime they said Chelmsford they made the police specify whether they meant the regular station or HQ.
-
Did any officer then say they meant HQ? Did any officer say HQ, then correct that to Chelmsford police station?
-
Did any officer then say they meant HQ? Did any officer say HQ, then correct that to Chelmsford police station?
If they did or if they didn't, what difference does it make? None of this proves a call from Neville.
-
Did any officer then say they meant HQ? Did any officer say HQ, then correct that to Chelmsford police station?
Since the interviewers made sure to make them specify in advance it made no difference.
Your desperation though is telling. You are not being driven by facts and evidence. Those Jeremy supporters who argue Nevill phoned police argue that either Nevill called West or alternatively Bonnett. How coudl the logs suggest he called both of them? Far from there being evidence to establish such there is just wild speculation and trying to grasp at straws to suggest he called one of them and any one will do. You are grasping at straws right now.
West and Bonnett working together in conjunction contacted various police cars. Bonnett's log thus reflects the cars that were contacted. Both men say they were in contact with one another regarding such. It makes no difference who contacted which car then told the other about it. Who contacted which car then told the other doesn't make a call from Nevill possible.
If Nevill had phoned Bonnett before Jeremy called West then when West contacted Bonnett he would have told west about how Nevill had already called and that he had already taken care of dispatching a car. So West dispatching the cars instead of Bonnett just makes a call from Nevill predating the call from Jeremy even less realistic and it alreayd was unrealistic. So I don't understand at all where you are trying to go with this.
A call from Nevill to West makes no sense because he would have called 999 not look up a police station number if he were going to call police. If he had called West before Jeremy then he would have told Jeremy he had already received a call from Nevill. Moreover, someone in the HQ IR room would have been contacted regarding such call. Then both would have been contacted again by Jeremy and would have noted to Jeremy the call from Nevill, that cars had already been dispatched and not to worry. They would not have asked Jeremy to go meet the cars either in that case because they would have expected the police to meet Nevill.
This issue has no legs at all and frankly those who keep arguing there was a call made by Neville are tossing their credibility out the window.
-
Your desperation though is telling.
I'm not desperate.
You are not being driven by facts and evidence. Those Jeremy supporters who argue Nevill phoned police argue that either Nevill called West or alternatively Bonnett. How could the logs suggest he called both of them
They don't and I didn't say they did. They suggest both Nevill and Jeremy telephoned Pc West.
West and Bonnett working together in conjunction contacted various police cars.
Pc West testified he made two calls to the police (the second to Witham), lasting only about 3 minutes in total, which was insufficient for them to be working together in conjunction in the way you described.
If Nevill had phoned Bonnett before Jeremy called West then when West contacted Bonnett he would have told West about how Nevill had already called and that he had already taken care of dispatching a car.
Nothing in Bonnett's log indicates Nevill called him directly. Bonnett logged that he received his information from Pc 1990, i.e., Pc West.
A call from Nevill to West makes no sense because he would have called 999 not look up a police station number if he were going to call police.
We don't know he needed to look up the number. It's easy to say in hindsight that he should have dialled 999. Presumably, he didn't at the time think there was a major emergency.
If he had called West before Jeremy then he would have told Jeremy he had already received a call from Nevill.
Not necessarily. Pc West just got on with handling Jeremy's call. Telling Jeremy that Nevill had already called wouldn't have helped Jeremy.
Moreover, someone in the HQ IR room would have been contacted regarding such call.
Of course. Pc West probably contacted Bonnett on both occasions.
Then both would have been contacted again by Jeremy.
No, because Jeremy was asked to go straight to WHF so that he could talk directly to the police there. Also, Jeremy had probably said his father wanted him to go to WHF.
They would not have asked Jeremy to go meet the cars either in that case because they would have expected the police to meet Nevill.
Again, no, because the situation was potentially serious, with no certainty that Nevill could meet them.
-
They don't and I didn't say they did. They suggest both Nevill and Jeremy telephoned Pc West.
They suggest one call - the call from Jeremy, the information is the same on both and Jeremy's mistake of Sheila's name is repeated.
Pc West testified he made two calls to the police (the second to Witham), lasting only about 3 minutes in total, which was insufficient for them to be working together in conjunction in the way you described.
Nothing in Bonnett's log indicates Nevill called him directly. Bonnett logged that he received his information from Pc 1990, i.e., Pc West.
Exactly, no call from Neville just one from Jeremy, passed by West to Bonnett. If he had called West twice, there would be two logs - another from Jeremy. However, a second call wouldn't be required and Jeremy would have been informed that the incident had been reported by his father and was being dealt with.
We don't know he needed to look up the number. It's easy to say in hindsight that he should have dialled 999. Presumably, he didn't at the time think there was a major emergency.
He'd already called Jeremy 'presumably' if he has now decided to call the police, the situation must have escalated and yet he uses a local cop shop number and doesn't dial 999. It doesn't fit and when Jeremy called West WOULD have mentioned that his father had called and they were dealing with it, it's common sense.
Not necessarily. Pc West just got on with handling Jeremy's call. Telling Jeremy that Nevill had already called wouldn't have helped Jeremy.
If the incident had 'already' been logged with a call from Neville, he wouldn't need to log it again and regardless of whether it helped Jeremy (he wasn't a social worker), he would have mentioned to 'inform' him that it was already being dealt with. Like I said, it's just common sense and is one of the major stumbling blocks in your argument.
Of course. Pc West probably contacted Bonnett on both occasions.
There is nothing to even suggest that Bonnett logged a second call from West
No, because Jeremy was asked to go straight to WHF so that he could talk directly to the police there. Also, Jeremy had probably said his father wanted him to go to WHF.
Don't know what that refers to.
Again, no, because the situation was potentially serious, with no certainty that Nevill could meet them.
Potentially serious? With no 999 call from either Jeremy or Neville? I agree with Scipio, they wouldn't have required Jeremy to go to WHF if police had spoken to Neville and again, would have told him it was being dealt with.
-
I'm not desperate.
They don't and I didn't say they did. They suggest both Nevill and Jeremy telephoned Pc West.
1) My point was that SOME Jeremy supporters insist Bonnett's log proves Nevill made a call to Bonnett while some other Jeremy Jeremy supporters insist West's log and/or Bonnett's log suggest Nevill called
West. The only common allegations made by such supperters are that the logs were doctored to conceal that Nevill made a call to police.
So that means Jeremy supporters looking at these documents insist they were doctored (based on no evidence) but disagree over what they suggest.
How can one claim the logs are clearcut evidence of anything when the logs have to be altered in order for them to suggest Nevill made a call and Jeremy supporters who believe such can't even agree over whether if altered they would establish a call from Nevill to West or Bonnett?
In the meantime there are plenty of Jeremy supporters who don't believe the logs were altered and don't suggest there was a call from Nevill to West or Bonnett. That makes the claim it is cear cut evidence even more laughable.
2) How do the logs suggest that Jeremy and Nevill both phoned West? While the claim Nevill phoned police is totally unsuported and incredulous, the claim Nevill called West is even more implausible than the claim he phoned Bonnett. You support the more ridiculous allegation.
Why would Nevill have bothered to phone Jeremy asking him to come help disarm his siter if Nevill planned to call police 2 seconds after he hung up the phone with Jeremy? Why would he look up the phone number to Witham instead of calling 999? How would he be able to look up the number to Witham and dial in 2 seconds so that Jeremy would get a busy signal? If West had spoken to Nevill before Jeremy he would have told such to jeremy when Jeremy called. The same way police always tell someone if they already received a report about the same thing previously and are already responding.
So as far as the 2 different lines of allegations go you support the one even more absurd that doesn't fit Jeremy's story about the phone immediately being busy and there is no documentary support for at all.
Pc West testified he made two calls to the police (the second to Witham), lasting only about 3 minutes in total, which was insufficient for them to be working together in conjunction in the way you described.
He also was heavily criticized afterwards as being totally unprepared to testify and not having refreshed his memory with respect to the case and was testifying a year afterwards so havd plenty of calls in the meantime to handle and had no reaosn to rememebr precisely how long he spoke to Jeremy before putting him on hold or after. Nor how long he spoke with the various police/dispatchers he coordinated his efforts with. His estimation of the time it took for Jeremy to convey to him eveyrhting conveyed and then o convey such to others and coordinate a response is not credible. Nor is it credible that he only asked Bonnett which cars were in the area. Clearly he told Bonnett eveyrthing because Bonnett says he did and wrote such down. If he didn't tell Bonneet all the details then how oculd Bonnett have recorded them? So right off the bat we know West messed up and there was more coordination going on than he recalled. Therefore his estimation of how much time that coordination took is of little use when he could not even remember all the coordination taking place. Jeremy says he waited on hold longer than West said and in this one instance his claims are more credible because the facts and evidence support more time being spent than West suggested.
Nothing in Bonnett's log indicates Nevill called him directly. Bonnett logged that he received his information from Pc 1990, i.e., Pc West.
Nor does it suggest a call from Nevill to West. Your allegation is that West told Bonnett about a call received from Nevill and that subsequently Bonnett altered it to pretend that the information came from Jeremy. The allegation makes no sense though and is unsupprted by anything. It is just a bare bones allegation based on deseprately wanting to believe that Nevill made a call because that would prove Jeremy innocent. So people who desperately want to believe Jeremy is innocent come up with this allegation out of thin air to try to support the view they hold. Jeremy supporters have no evidence of his innocence so have to manufacture it that is the bottom line.
Not all of them manufacture evidence though some admit they have no evidence and just live on blind faith.
We don't know he needed to look up the number. It's easy to say in hindsight that he should have dialled 999. Presumably, he didn't at the time think there was a major emergency.
Not necessarily. Pc West just got on with handling Jeremy's call. Telling Jeremy that Nevill had already called wouldn't have helped Jeremy.
Of course. Pc West probably contacted Bonnett on both occasions.
No, because Jeremy was asked to go straight to WHF so that he could talk directly to the police there. Also, Jeremy had probably said his father wanted him to go to WHF.
Again, no, because the situation was potentially serious, with no certainty that Nevill could meet them.
1) Why would Nevill know Witham police station's number? I called my local police yesterday to report a bear and still don't know the number offhand.
2) Why would Nevill call Jeremy at all to ask him to come help if he planned to call police let alone would he call Jeremy before the police? If anythign he would call Jeremy after.
3) If Nevill had called already and told West everything then West would have EVERY reason to tell Jeremy he already received the call directly from Nevill so would not need to hear what Nevill told Jeremy. If he heard from the horses mouth why would he need to hear it all over again from Jeremy? Furthermore if he already dispatched someone he would tell that to Jeremy. To feed West all the details from Nevill and then again from Jeremy makes no sense. You just note hat Jeremy called as well after Nevill.
My name is Nevill Bamber, my daughter has gone crazy and got a hold of a gun I need help. I called my son to ask him to come help.
After contacting HQ and organizing a response they receive a call from Jeremy telling them about how their father had called. What do they do?
They say yes we already know your father called us we sent a unit on the way. There is no need to place him on hold and try to coordinate a new repsonse or to take into detail what his father claimed to him because they spoke to his father already.
Your position is totally baseless and untenable.
If Nevill had called West and told him all about
-
They suggest one call - the call from Jeremy, the information is the same on both and Jeremy's mistake of Sheila's name is repeated.
It's already been pointed out that the information is not the same - Sheila's age is given differently. Also, Bonnett's log doesn't say that the information about Sheila came from Jeremy (reporting a call from his father). The subject is completed as Daughter gone berserk, suggesting that Nevill gave the information.
there would be two logs - another from Jeremy.
We don't know that Pc West didn't log Nevill's call prior to logging Jeremy's call.
a second call wouldn't be required and Jeremy would have been informed that the incident had been reported by his father and was being dealt with.
Not necessarily, that's just speculation.
He'd already called Jeremy 'presumably' if he has now decided to call the police, the situation must have escalated and yet he uses a local cop shop number and doesn't dial 999. It doesn't fit
The situation needn't have changed at all. Nevill could simply have changed his mind.
If the incident had 'already' been logged with a call from Neville, he wouldn't need to log it again
It's not a matter of need. Pc West just followed the usual procedure. It needn't become evident until later whether a second log is important.
There is nothing to even suggest that Bonnett logged a second call from West
That's just your opinion. The different logging of Sheila's age suffices.
Don't know what that refers to.
What exactly are you specifying with the word "that"?
Potentially serious? With no 999 call from either Jeremy or Neville?
Seriousness depends on what has been communicated rather than the number dialled.
-
It's already been pointed out that the information is not the same - Sheila's age is given differently. Also, Bonnett's log doesn't say that the information about Sheila came from Jeremy (reporting a call from his father). The subject is completed as Daughter gone berserk, suggesting that Nevill gave the information.
We don't know that Pc West didn't log Nevill's call prior to logging Jeremy's call.
Not necessarily, that's just speculation.
The situation needn't have changed at all. Nevill could simply have changed his mind.
It's not a matter of need. Pc West just followed the usual procedure. It needn't become evident until later whether a second log is important.
That's just your opinion. The different logging of Sheila's age suffices.
What exactly are you specifying with the word "that"?
Seriousness depends on what has been communicated rather than the number dialled.
I don't agree with any of the above and this has been done to death. If you want to believe that Neville called in the face of all the evidence pointing to the contrary, that up to you. It's pointless just repeating the same things - however. I am even more sure than before that Neville made no such call when I read the excuses put forward in favour of the call.
I must just add that it's not speculation to maintain that West would have told Jeremy about a call from Neville, it's 'common sense'
-
It's already been pointed out that the information is not the same - Sheila's age is given differently. The different logging of Sheila's age suffices.
Wow the age is the only difference, there is a big thing. It was pointed out to you already that both ages were wrong that in fact Sheila was 28. It was also pointed out to you that even under your scenario the information on Bonnett's log was passed to Bonnett from West not passed to Bonnett from Nevill or Jeremy. So by definition that means either:
1) West provided a different age to Bonnett than West wrote down on his log
or
2) Bonnett wrote down a different age then West provided to him
Neither circumstance suggests a call from Nevill. Your argument that the age difference suggests Nevill called is downright stupid.
Also, Bonnett's log doesn't say that the information about Sheila came from Jeremy (reporting a call from his father). The subject is completed as Daughter gone berserk, suggesting that Nevill gave the information.
Bonnett's log does indeed say it came from Jeremy. It clearly states message passed to West from Bamber's son after the phone went dead.
(http://s30.postimg.org/sg618wrox/bonnettmessage.jpg)
We don't know that Pc West didn't log Nevill's call prior to logging Jeremy's call.
We do indeed known West didn't log a call from Nevill first. If that had been the case then:
1) there would be a log from West listing Nevill as the caller. Instead there is just a log showing Jeremy as the caller.
2) Bonnett's log would indicate the Nevill called and relayed the message instead of saying his son passed it to West.
3) West would have told Jeremy that he already spoke to his father and dispatched a car to WHF so Jeremy had nothing to worry about and he would have no need to take down Nevill's phone number and everything he told Jeremy because West would already have all such information. He also would not have needed to put Jeremy on hold.
4) He and Bonnett would have included in their written statements/verbal testimony that Nevill had called.
So you are have nothing at all to raise to suggest that Nevill called.
The situation needn't have changed at all. Nevill could simply have changed his mind.
Once again ridiculous. Jeremy said that he immediately called back to WHF and the phone was busy. So you are suggesting he decided to call only Jeremy not police but instantly upon hanging up change dhis mind and decided to call police. Instead of dialing 999 though he calls the Chelmsford Police station and he is able to call because he has the number memorized though it is not his local station. Give me a break! Talk about trying to build a house of cards...
-
1) My point was that SOME Jeremy supporters insist Bonnett's log proves Nevill made a call to Bonnett
I disagree with such a deduction. Bonnett's log obviously isn't proof of anything at all, but it's suggestive of a call from Pc 1990 (i.e., West) as a result of Nevill having called Pc West.
How can one claim the logs are clearcut evidence of anything when the logs have to be altered in order for them to suggest Nevill made a call and Jeremy supporters who believe such can't even agree over whether if altered they would establish a call from Nevill to West or Bonnett?
Any log is the result of a process of successive alteration. Giving Sheila's age as 26 is sufficient to suggest that information came from Nevill, as Pc West logged Sheila's age, as given by Jeremy, as 27.
the claim it is clear cut evidence even more laughable.
In your opinion, but I didn't make such a claim anyway.
How do the logs suggest that Jeremy and Nevill both phoned West?
They give Sheila's age differently, as has been pointed out to you several times.
While the claim Nevill phoned police is totally unsupported and incredulous, the claim Nevill called West is even more implausible than the claim he phoned Bonnett. You support the more ridiculous allegation.
The words "incredulous" and "ridiculous" don't mean the same thing. Bonnett's log gives Sheila's age differently, which is sufficient to suggest a different source for that information.
Why would Nevill have bothered to phone Jeremy asking him to come help disarm his siter if Nevill planned to call police 2 seconds after he hung up the phone with Jeremy? Why would he look up the phone number to Witham instead of calling 999? How would he be able to look up the number to Witham and dial in 2 seconds so that Jeremy would get a busy signal?
I haven't suggested any of those things occurred.
If West had spoken to Nevill before Jeremy he would have told such to Jeremy when Jeremy called.
Not necessarily. Logging all calls makes sense.
. . . doesn't fit Jeremy's story about the phone immediately being busy and there is no documentary support for at all.
A telephone is "busy" if off-hook, whether or not it's in use to make a call.
He also was heavily criticized afterwards as being totally unprepared to testify and not having refreshed his memory with respect to the case
I know, but he was quite clear that he did remember the durations he mentioned. There's nothing unbelievable about "1 minute" and "3 minutes". There was even an attempt to query those on the basis that Pc West trended to speak slowly (a common trait in Essex), but Pc West stuck to his guns.
Clearly he told Bonnett everything because Bonnett says he did and wrote such down.
That doesn't make sense, as Bonnett couldn't have known at the time whether he'd been told everything. Anyway, Bonnett didn't record the age of 27 yrs for Sheila that Jeremy gave PC West.
Jeremy says he waited on hold longer than West said and in this one instance his claims are more credible
In your opinion, but Jeremy didn't estimate the total duration of his call. He simply recalled being on hold for quite some time and gave an estimate of that time.
Your allegation is that West told Bonnett about a call received from Nevill and that subsequently Bonnett altered it
That's easy to assert, but it makes sense to many people, given that Bonnett's log starts without mentioning Jeremy and gives Sheila's age as 26, whereas Jeremy told Pc West she was 27.
Why would Nevill know Witham police station's number?
He might have known. Various reasons are possible. Perhaps he simply had a good memory.
Why would Nevill call Jeremy at all to ask him to come help if he planned to call police let alone call Jeremy before the police?
Nobody knows whether he planned as you suggest. He may simply have changed his mind.
If Nevill had called already and told West everything then West would have EVERY reason to tell Jeremy he already received the call directly from Nevill so would not need to hear what Nevill told Jeremy.
It makes sense to log every call, as it isn't known in advance whether important new information will be given.
-
very patient and well written post reader.
-
Reader, Your games are just betraying your bias and desperation. You keep hiding from logic and evidence that was squarely thrown in your face. You refused to repsond to and quote the phost that demolished your claims. You did so because you can't and yet want to maintain your charade.
I disagree with such a deduction. Bonnett's log obviously isn't proof of anything at all, but it's suggestive of a call from Pc 1990 (i.e., West) as a result of Nevill having called Pc West.
Suggestive of a call from Nevill how? You relied on two claims to suggest such and I exposed those claim as totally bogus. I did such a good job of demolishing yuor claims that your refused to quote my posts and offer no response. So you are pretending I didn't post and continuing with a line of reasoning you know has no basis in fact. You made the false claim that Bonnet's log fails to attribute the account to Jeremy. I proved your claim untrue by providing a snippet of the page where it clearly states message passed to West by Mr Bamber's son. Right there is a crash and burn moment. You didn't respond or offer any rebuttal you just ignored it and charge ahead with a position that you know was refuted.
The only other basis you offered for Bonnett's log to be indicative of a call from Nevill is the fact that the age listed for Sheila on Bonnett's log is different from the age on West's log. I proved the fallacy of your claim that it suggests Nevill called and gave a different age. So again you chose not to respond to my argument, to just ignore it and charge ahead with your nonsensical claim. I didn't just call it a nonsensical claim I proved it to be a nonsensical claim.
Once you admitted that you do not believe Nevill called Bonnett directly you demolished any ability at all to claim the age difference suggests a call from a second person. These are your own words, "I'm not suggesting that Nevill called Bonnett, but that Nevill, possibly after getting no reply from Witham, telephoned Pc West. As Nevill didn't dial 999, the situation hadn't yet become a full-scale emergency from his point of view."
So let's make clear what you are alleging. You are alleging that West wrote down Sheila's age as 26 and ye told Bonnett she was 27 because Bonnett wrote 27. You claim this suggests that West received another call prior to Jeremy's call indicating she was 27 because Nevill would know her real age. I agree that Nevill would know her real age and her real age was 28. All that the age discrepancy suggests is that either:
1) West provided a different age to Bonnett than West wrote down on his log
or
2) Bonnett wrote down a different age than West provided to him
Neither of these circumstances suggests a call from Nevill. Your argument that the age difference suggests Nevill called is downright stupid.
Far from responding in some substantive way to rebut my position you just ignored it and maintained your same silly position. That demonstrates you are not acting out of anything other than bias and have no valid basis at all for your claims.
You chose not to quote my post like you had been doing in practice throughout this thread and didn't quote it because you had no rebuttal instead you just did the broken record routine:
Any log is the result of a process of successive alteration. Giving Sheila's age as 26 is sufficient to suggest that information came from Nevill, as Pc West logged Sheila's age, as given by Jeremy, as 27.
In your opinion, but I didn't make such a claim anyway.
They give Sheila's age differently, as has been pointed out to you several times.
The words "incredulous" and "ridiculous" don't mean the same thing. Bonnett's log gives Sheila's age differently, which is sufficient to suggest a different source for that information.
How does the age difference suggest a different source? What I postied to you in the post you are responding to proves you wrong. You admit that West fed the age in question to Bonnett. I posted what that means and you know you are wrong so refused to quote my response and to pretend it was never made. Here it is again:
All that the age discrepancy suggests is that either:
1) West provided a different age to Bonnett than West wrote down on his log
or
2) Bonnett wrote down a different age than West provided to him
Neither of these circumstances suggests a call from Nevill. Your argument that the age difference suggests Nevill called is downright stupid.
Each time you ignore this, hide from it and try to pretend this argument doesn't exist so you don't have to rebut it, that just makes plain you understand your position is absurd and unsupportable and that you don't care you will stick with your absurd position anyway. If your position were supportable you would take the opposing argument head on and rebut it successfully. But you can't. It is as baseless as your claim that the log didn't attribute the information as coming from Jeremy. Your arguments were fully dismantled.
I haven't suggested any of those things occurred.
Not necessarily. Logging all calls makes sense.
A telephone is "busy" if off-hook, whether or not it's in use to make a call.
I know, but he was quite clear that he did remember the durations he mentioned. There's nothing unbelievable about "1 minute" and "3 minutes". There was even an attempt to query those on the basis that Pc West trended to speak slowly (a common trait in Essex), but Pc West stuck to his guns.
That doesn't make sense, as Bonnett couldn't have known at the time whether he'd been told everything. Anyway, Bonnett didn't record the age of 27 yrs for Sheila that Jeremy gave PC West.
In your opinion, but Jeremy didn't estimate the total duration of his call. He simply recalled being on hold for quite some time and gave an estimate of that time.
That's easy to assert, but it makes sense to many people, given that Bonnett's log starts without mentioning Jeremy and gives Sheila's age as 26, whereas Jeremy told Pc West she was 27.
He might have known. Various reasons are possible. Perhaps he simply had a good memory.
Nobody knows whether he planned as you suggest. He may simply have changed his mind.
It makes sense to log every call, as it isn't known in advance whether important new information will be given.
Your rambings totally avoid delaing with the points raised that dismantled your arguments. Apparently now you are suggesting even more ridiculous things. You seem to be waivering about Nevill knowing the phone number to Chelmsford and instead suggesting he left the phone off the hook as he went to look the number up or do something else. Why would he leave the phone off the hook? It is clear that instead of followin gevidence where it leads you have decised without any evidence to believe that Jeremy is innocent and to just make up things to support your position. That includes making up that Nevill phoned police and you will just make up anything to try to fit Jeremy's allegations and known facts. We don't know if Jeremy's claim is true that he instanly called back and the phone was busy. But in an effort to make his claims true you are ready to make up all sorts of tales. The hilarious thinkg is that Jeremy supporters do this all the time then pjoject and claim that those who believe the offical story are engaging isn't such. Hilarious!
Bonnet's log makes it clear that West told him that he received a call from Jeremy and that Jeremy claimed to have received a call from Nevill and wrote down the things that West told him came from Jeremy. Bonnett also stated such when questioned. You ignored the part of the log that said message passed to West from son because that demolishes your claims.
You also ignored that the 2 possible reasonable explanations for her age being listed as different is because either:
1) West provided a different age to Bonnett than West wrote down on his log
or
2) Bonnett wrote down a different age than West provided to him by either misunderstanding West's words or simply accidentally writing down a differnt number than he intended to write.
Instead you maintain the unreaosnable explanation that Nevill called and gave the wrong age of 27 to West (which you have no evidence at all to support- no testimony no documentary evidence) then Jeremy called and provided the wrong age of 26 which West recorded on his log and then when he called Bonnett he decided to use age 27 like Nevill told him. That is youar argument in a nutshell. Far from having any basis is evidence it is totally contrived and mad eup.
For your position to have any basis at all you would need either a log from West where he wrote 27 and attrivuted the call to someone other than Jeremy or at lest testimony to that effect. But West says only Jeremy called, Bonnett says that West told him only about Jeremy's call, Bonnett's log references West receiving a call from Jeremy, West's log references a call from Jeremy only and have evill phoned first then West would have told Jeremy about the call. Your claim he would not tell Jeremy is indeed ludicrous. You have no leg to stand on at all and you know it. That is why you stopped quoting verbatim. You are going to have a hard time avoiding my points though if you repsond to this because I repeated them so many times that it will be hard to snip them out.
-
There is no reason why Neville would call both Jeremy and the police. Or vice versa.
Why an earth phone the police and then put you're only son in danger. He won't answer the phone anyway.
Why an earth phone Jeremy to save the day, and then the police.
I created a thread on this. It was deleted and this exact same thread was created. I will look for my thread post which explains everything.
-
very patient and well written post reader.
What are you reading? Reader got smoked to any rational observer. Only the most extreme bias imaginable could make someone delusional enough to think otherwise.
I posted the exact portion of Bonnett's log that proved him wrong- the log does indeed attribute the account that was detailed to Jeremy. It clearly states message passed to CD (West) from Jeremy.
Moreover I took apart his claims with respect to the age difference between the 2 logs. All that proves is that either:
1) West provided a different age to Bonnett than West wrote down on his log
or
2) Bonnett wrote down a different age than West provided to him by either misunderstanding West's words or simply accidentally writing down a differnt number than he intended to write.
Neither of these supports his claim that the age difference was because of a call from Nevill, indeed Nevill would have said her age was 28 because he would have known her age.
-
Adam I don't think Ralph Bamber phoned the police or Jeremy now this is just my opinion of course I have no evidence to prove this or otherwise. Do hope you find your lost thread :)
-
Adam I don't think Ralph Bamber phoned the police or Jeremy now this is just my opinion of course I have no evidence to prove this or otherwise. Do hope you find your lost thread :)
The burden is on the defense to produce evidence of these calls but can't. There is a great deal of evidence that goes against these supposed calls being made though so your opinion has support. The other side has no support and yet the burden of proof rests with them we don't have to prove a negative. So they have a severe problem.
-
Morning Scipio I agree but think maybe Caroline was nearer to the truth over the two logs being one of the same so dismisses any evidence of the two calls.
-
I don't agree with any of the above and this has been done to death. If you want to believe that Neville called in the face of all the evidence pointing to the contrary, that up to you. It's pointless just repeating the same things - however. I am even more sure than before that Neville made no such call when I read the excuses put forward in favour of the call.
I must just add that it's not speculation to maintain that West would have told Jeremy about a call from Neville, it's 'common sense'
Especially so when the logs are read in conjunction with West's trial evidence.
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1103.msg34166.html#msg34166 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1103.msg34166.html#msg34166)
If I didn't know better, I would guess that Reader is simply pulling your leg. :-\
-
It's already been pointed out that the information is not the same - Sheila's age is given differently. Also, Bonnett's log doesn't say that the information about Sheila came from Jeremy (reporting a call from his father). The subject is completed as Daughter gone berserk, suggesting that Nevill gave the information.
We don't know that Pc West didn't log Nevill's call prior to logging Jeremy's call.
Not necessarily, that's just speculation.
The situation needn't have changed at all. Nevill could simply have changed his mind.
It's not a matter of need. Pc West just followed the usual procedure. It needn't become evident until later whether a second log is important.
That's just your opinion. The different logging of Sheila's age suffices.
What exactly are you specifying with the word "that"?
Seriousness depends on what has been communicated rather than the number dialled.
I don't agree with any of the above . . . I must just add that it's not speculation to maintain that West would have told Jeremy about a call from Neville, it's 'common sense'
You don't agree that Sheila's age is given differently in the two logs?
You don't agree that Nevill is capable of changing his mind?
You don't agree with a question that asks you to explain what you meant?
You don't agree that the police can make an assessment of the seriousness of a call due to its content, but instead think they tend to go by whether it's a 999 call to make such an assessment?
At least scipio_usmc is trying to explain his reasoning, whereas you're now just saying you disagree with everything.
Applying 'common sense' to form an opinion as to what Pc West would have done is, by definition, speculation. Pc West was physically capable of telling Jeremy about Nevill's call, but it's possible that he stuck to a standard procedure of logging all calls and dealing with them as efficiently as possible. How come you don't apply 'common sense' to explain Pc West's evidence that the clock he referred to "has on occasions been inaccurate, but on very few occasions", given that A/Ps John Stephen Holby Smith had apparently stated that the control room wall clock rarely showed an accurate time? Doesn't 'common sense' suggest that one of those officers was being untruthful about the accuracy of the clock? Doesn't 'common sense' indicate that the police would ensure that their clocks were reliable and accurate, especially in the control room?
Pc West's log of Jeremy's call gives his father's words as "Please come over. Your sister has gone crazy & has the gun." In contrast, Bonnett's log has just "Daughter gone berserk", then "daughter Sheila Bamber, aged 26yrs has got hold of one of my guns". Thus, his log omits the wording "Please come over" that Pc West logged in relation to Jeremy's call, gives Sheila's age differently, gives "berserk", whereas Pc West logged "crazy", and gives "has got hold of one of my guns", whereas Pc West's log gives "has the gun".
-
You made the false claim that Bonnet's log fails to attribute the account to Jeremy.
Bonnett logged "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber, after the phone went dead. Mr. Bamber has a collection of shotguns and ·410's." That doesn't assert that the preceding information about Sheila in the log was passed by Jeremy. It's consistent with Bonnett adding to the log a significant piece of information that also came via Pc West, but later and from a different source, the son of Mr. Bamber.
I proved the fallacy of your claim that it suggests Nevill called and gave a different age. I didn't just call it a nonsensical claim, I proved it to be a nonsensical claim.
You didn't prove a fallacy. I'm suggesting that Nevill gave Sheila's age to Pc West as 26, whereas Jeremy gave it as 27. That's not the only explanation of the difference that can be devised, but it could be the correct explanation. It's not nonsensical. It may well be the case that Sheila was 28, but that doesn't make my suggestion nonsensical or stupid. On occasion, people give their own age incorrectly by mistake - not very often, but it can sometimes occur.
. . . instead suggesting he left the phone off the hook as he went to look the number up or do something else. Why would he leave the phone off the hook?
I'm suggesting that the telephone was either off-hook or being used to make another call, and that either is possible. Nevill may have ended his call to Jeremy because of something he heard. In that case, the telephone handset could have been off-hook for a short while due to Nevill pausing to listen to any sounds in the house.
Bonnett also stated such when questioned.
Bonnett was asked to make a statement, which he did, but we don't know what he was asked to put in his statement. You haven't presented anything to show he was formally questioned at any stage in relation to this case. His statement indicates that he received a call from Pc West and after the call from Pc West ended, he contacted car CA07 and sent it to WHF. The statement doesn't mention Jeremy or Nevill.
Bonnett says that West told him only about Jeremy's call
He didn't say that. That's just your conclusion from the content of his log.
-
Bonnett logged "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber, after the phone went dead. Mr. Bamber has a collection of shotguns and ·410's." That doesn't assert that the preceding information about Sheila in the log was passed by Jeremy. It's consistent with Bonnett adding to the log a significant piece of information that also came via Pc West, but later and from a different source, the son of Mr. Bamber.
It means the entire message was passed to CD West from Jeremy not merely the sentence that follows about the shotguns. Your reading makes no sense.
It clearly states that Jeremy asserted to West that he was speaking to his father and the phone went dead and his father passed the entire preceding message before it went dead. Then it adds about the shotguns. It doesn't say son called after Nevill indicating there is a collection of shotguns. Nor does it say Nevill called and Jeremy called to indicate the same message passed to police by Nevill was passed to his son. It says the preceding message was passed from his son before the line went dead. That part about passing it before the line went dead is fatal to your claim that Jeremy called and simply provided information about the shotguns.
When questioned both men state that Jeremy was the source of the infromation not Nevill and that there was only information from Jeremy so there is no doubt at all as to what was meant.
You are straining to read it in a manner that is untenable and defies the plain language as well as the testimony of the 2 dispatchers. you are trying to pretend it says, "preceding message was also passed to son by Nevill Bamber" but it doesn't say that. Nor does it say, "son also spoke to father and added that there is a collection of shotguns." There is no language at all to indicate the message was passed to police by Nevill and that Jeremy called later with the same story. Indeed Nevill would have told police that before calling them he had called his son and told his son to go over.
Why did police to contact the house? Because of Jeremy's story that the phone call was disconnected and line was busy. They would have calmed him down to say don't worry he is alive still because after
phoning you he phoned us.
You didn't prove a fallacy. I'm suggesting that Nevill gave Sheila's age to Pc West as 26, whereas Jeremy gave it as 27. That's not the only explanation of the difference that can be devised, but it could be the correct explanation. It's not nonsensical. It may well be the case that Sheila was 28, but that doesn't make my suggestion nonsensical or stupid. On occasion, people give their own age incorrectly by mistake - not very often, but it can sometimes occur.
Your position makes no sense at all for the reasons I already articulated. I already filled out your allegation in full. You are suggesting that West wrote down age 26 on the log of Jeremy's call and yet told Bonnett age 27 because he fielded a prior call from Nevill where Nevill provided him the wrong age of 27. So you are suggesting West fielded a call from Nevill, he either failed to wrote up a log of the call or he destroyed it later and that Nevill had provided her age as 27 so West used that when he was giving the account to Bonnett. This giant conspiracy all because he wrote age 26 and yet Bonnett listed 27. That's a giant leap and huge amount of specualtion based on something easily explained by either:
1) West accidentally providing Bonnett with a different age than West had written down
or
2) West telling Bonnett age 27 though he meant to say 26
or
3) West telling Bonnett age 27 but Bonnett misunderstanding him
That is the field of possiiblities your suggestion is not a logical possibility it is a giant conspiracy web totally unsupported by the simple error and it further hinges on your erroenous reading of message passed by son meaning only the essage about shotguns though as already explained above that is nonsense.
Hence your attempts are equivalent to attempting to construct a house of cards on vibrating bed- it won't get off the ground.
I'm suggesting that the telephone was either off-hook or being used to make another call, and that either is possible. Nevill may have ended his call to Jeremy because of something he heard. In that case, the telephone handset could have been off-hook for a short while due to Nevill pausing to listen to any sounds in the house.
If he hears a noise he wants to investigate then he would hang the phone up not disconnect the call by holding the buttons down. It is father to hand up a phone by simply placing the reciver down than to hold the button(s) down for a suitable amount of time for the call to disconnect.
Worse yet the headset was off the phone when the killings took place so we are being asked to believe he held the buttons down to hang up the phone while keeping the headset off the hook and left it that way for a bit. Returned, hung it up to call police then left it off the phone again because that is how it was found. It doesn't make sense.
There are a great number of things that would have happened had Nevill made a call to police and yet none of these things did happen. Jeremy would have been told of the call and not told to go. They would not have needed to do the line check because they woudl have known Nevill used the phone after calling Jeremy. The police would have known about the call and DCI Jones woudl have used it to put the suspicions of the family to bed. I can go on and on but there is no need to these are more than sufficient.
Bonnett was asked to make a statement, which he did, but we don't know what he was asked to put in his statement. You haven't presented anything to show he was formally questioned at any stage in relation to this case. His statement indicates that he received a call from Pc West and after the call from Pc West ended, he contacted car CA07 and sent it to WHF. The statement doesn't mention Jeremy or Nevill.
He didn't say that. That's just your conclusion from the content of his log.
He was questioned by COLP in 1991. More importantly, trying to pretend he wrote the log in response to Nevill's call and yet would not mention it was in response to Nevill's call is absurd. The on;y way for tha tto be the case would be if he was told to conceal a call from Nevill and pretend there had only been a call from Jeremy. There is no way to suggest such could have been innocently left out. The only way woudl be if it were intentional to conceal and there is no evidence at all to support such or any other claims you are making. You are straining beyond all reason to try to pretend it is possible that Bonnett's log reflects a call from Nevill to police.
-
It means the entire message was passed to CD West from Jeremy not merely the sentence that follows about the shotguns.
That's your interpretation, but not what is specifically stated in the log. It is possible to interpret it in the way I explained.
It clearly states . . . that Jeremy asserted to West his father passed the entire preceding message before it went dead.
No, as you're adding the wording "entire preceding", which isn't in the log.
Nor does it say Nevill called and Jeremy called to indicate the same message passed to police by Nevill was passed to his son.
Of course, as it wasn't the same message. Nevill hadn't mentioned Jeremy or the shotguns in his message. He had mentioned Sheila, but using different words and had given her age differently.
When questioned, both men state that Jeremy was the source of the information, not Nevill, and that there was only information from Jeremy.
At Jeremy's trial, Pc West wasn't asked whether Nevill had called him, and didn't state that there was only information from Jeremy. Bonnett wasn't questioned at the trial. If you are referring to the COLP enquiry, post the relevant COLP documents.
Nevill would have told police that before calling them he had called his son and told his son to go over.
Not necessarily. What mattered most was the information about Sheila. Bonnett's log doesn't state that Jeremy had been asked to come over.
Why did police contact the house? Because of Jeremy's story that the phone call was disconnected and line was busy.
Of course, but it was Pc West that tried the WHF number after Jeremy's call. Bonnett's reference to the line going dead is in his added remarks that mention information passed by the son of Mr. Bamber. Note that Pc West timed the line test at 3:42, which fits nicely with an immediate preceding call from Jeremy that lasted about six minutes. In your timeline, what was Pc West doing between 3:36 and 3:42?
You are suggesting that West wrote down age 26 on the log of Jeremy's call and yet told Bonnett age 27 because he fielded a prior call from Nevill where Nevill provided him the wrong age of 27.
No, the other way round. Jeremy gave 27 and Pc West wrote that on his disclosed log. Bonnett wrote 26, which indicates PC West told him 26, which in turn suggests Pc West was told 26, which in turn suggests Pc West was quoting information from Nevill, as Jeremy told him 27 (at about 3:36am).
If he hears a noise he wants to investigate then he would hang the phone up not disconnect the call by holding the buttons down.
Not necessarily. I was talking about a possible short period of time, perhaps just the time needed to listen at the door, then close the door, but he may have called the police straight away. Even if he replaced the handset after calling the police, that doesn't mean it wasn't taken off-hook again later. Jeremy said he tried the line several times and then called Sheila. He didn't say he tried the WHF number again after calling Sheila.
He was questioned by COLP in 1991.
Transcript available? If not, how do you know what was said?
The only way for that to be the case would be if he was told to conceal a call from Nevill and pretend there had only been a call from Jeremy.
Obviously, Nevill's call to the police was concealed. The original reasons for that related to police failings, not a plan to fit up Jeremy.
-
That's your interpretation, but not what is specifically stated in the log. It is possible to interpret it in the way I explained.
No, as you're adding the wording "entire preceding", which isn't in the log.
Of course, as it wasn't the same message. Nevill hadn't mentioned Jeremy or the shotguns in his message. He had mentioned Sheila, but using different words and had given her age differently.
At Jeremy's trial, Pc West wasn't asked whether Nevill had called him, and didn't state that there was only information from Jeremy. Bonnett wasn't questioned at the trial. If you are referring to the COLP enquiry, post the relevant COLP documents.
Not necessarily. What mattered most was the information about Sheila. Bonnett's log doesn't state that Jeremy had been asked to come over.
Of course, but it was Pc West that tried the WHF number after Jeremy's call. Bonnett's reference to the line going dead is in his added remarks that mention information passed by the son of Mr. Bamber. Note that Pc West timed the line test at 3:42, which fits nicely with an immediate preceding call from Jeremy that lasted about six minutes. In your timeline, what was Pc West doing between 3:36 and 3:42?
No, the other way round. Jeremy gave 27 and Pc West wrote that on his disclosed log. Bonnett wrote 26, which indicates PC West told him 26, which in turn suggests Pc West was told 26, which in turn suggests Pc West was quoting information from Nevill, as Jeremy told him 27 (at about 3:36am).
Not necessarily. I was talking about a possible short period of time, perhaps just the time needed to listen at the door, then close the door, but he may have called the police straight away. Even if he replaced the handset after calling the police, that doesn't mean it wasn't taken off-hook again later. Jeremy said he tried the line several times and then called Sheila. He didn't say he tried the WHF number again after calling Sheila.
Transcript available? If not, how do you know what was said?
Obviously, Nevill's call to the police was concealed. The original reasons for that related to police failings, not a plan to fit up Jeremy.
West testified and gave evidence.
Are you suggesting he lied or withheld information?
If so, on what grounds? ???
-
I cant quite get my head round why the timings and that 10 minutes was so important but the police even before the court case thought it was because they investigated what happened ?
-
I cant quite get my head round why the timings and that 10 minutes was so important but the police even before the court case thought it was because they investigated what happened ?
I don't understand what you mean. :-\
-
Not sure I do either tbh? ???
But if EP are being accused of hiding something and the timings are important why is it so important?
Is it to do with the fact that if the call was 3.36 and with what happened inbetween the car would never been dispatched at the time that it was ? so they had to prove it was 3.26?
Do you get what I mean? sort of? If they did not show both parts of the logs in court then I guess the one they did show did not tie up with Wests statement so they knew it would come up as a question so had to cover it by an investigation?
btw I do get the bits about being confused about sheilas surname - she was separated and some people like to go back to being called maiden name or may even be at an "inbetween stage" Also if you asked me the age of my children I might sometimes hesitate to come up with the right age very quickly - only by one year though :)
-
Not sure I do either tbh? ???
But if EP are being accused of hiding something and the timings are important why is it so important?
Is it to do with the fact that if the call was 3.36 and with what happened inbetween the car would never been dispatched at the time that it was ? so they had to prove it was 3.26?
Do you get what I mean? sort of? If they did not show both parts of the logs in court then I guess the one they did show did not tie up with Wests statement so they knew it would come up as a question so had to cover it by an investigation?
btw I do get the bits about being confused about sheilas surname - she was separated and some people like to go back to being called maiden name or may even be at an "inbetween stage" Also if you asked me the age of my children I might sometimes hesitate to come up with the right age very quickly - only by one year though :)
Seriously, the alleged call from Nevill to the police is utterly bonkers, fictitious and desperate. It's absurd to even contemplate it's existence in my view.
The defence hasn't even put it forward as a complaint.
I think this follows on from what NGB and I were discussing. The Campaign Team and the legal team are different entities and regardless of the legal teams reluctance to correct the Campaign Teams mythology, it does not follow that the Campaign Team are accurate in any of their accusations.
It's also clear to me that the legal team should not be ridiculed for the Campaign Teams skullduggery.
-
I think I agree with you really - partly because it probably would have been mentioned to the relatives and Jeremy in the first few hours -after all they were not exactly tight lipped about other things ( even though they gave out all the wrong information ::))
The only way I could see them trying to hide it would have been if things had been cocked up when they went it in and the decision was keep everything quiet from everyone until they decided how best to cover things up. But that did not happen because they were only too quick to tell the family and the press their theories. So they were not being tight lipped were they ?
IMO only though they should have got the information correct and have been more considerate about releasing information about how the victim were found.
-
That's your interpretation, but not what is specifically stated in the log. It is possible to interpret it in the way I explained.
No, it's not possible to intepret it the way you claim. Your interpretation is not supported by the plain language of the document.
Your intepretatiton is contradicted by all available evidence and logic and SOLELY stems from you being too biased to be rational. you are so desperate to find a way to defend Jeremy that you are absurdedly pretending that the log makes it appear that West told Bonnett that Nevill himself passed a message to West and that Bonnett simply neglected to mention such in his various statements as did West in his 2 statements, trial testimony and statement to COLP. You are trying to pretend that West and Bonneett just didn't say such because they were not asked. Your games are silly.
All you are doing is embarrassing yourself in the process.
No, as you're adding the wording "entire preceding", which isn't in the log.
Of course, as it wasn't the same message. Nevill hadn't mentioned Jeremy or the shotguns in his message. He had mentioned Sheila, but using different words and had given her age differently.
I'm not adding anything. He wrote a message attributed to Nevill AKA Mr. Bamber. right after it he wrote, "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber after the phone went dead". What message was passed to the CD by the son of Mr. Bamber? The preceding message naturally because that is the message that Jeremy attributed to his father before the phone went dead.
You want to ignore the context, the plain language and even all the statements given by West and Bonnett to pretend that Bonnett's comment was that Jeremy just passed the message about Nevill having a collection of shotguns only. If that were the case then Bonnett would have written something to the effect of, "CD spoke to Mr Bamber's son afterward and he indicated Mr. Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410s." He would not write such in two sentences in the following manner:
"Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber after the phone went dead. Mr. Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410s"
If his comment was to just say Jeremy mentioned the shotgun collection he would have done it in a single sentence. Your straining betrays your bias it is that simple.
"Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber after the phone went dead." What message was passed to Jeremy BEFORE the phone went dead that was passed by Jeremy to the CD AFTER the
phone went dead? That his father told him Sheila had gone crazy and had a gun. There is no way at all to get around such and pretend the nonsense you are pretending.
At Jeremy's trial, Pc West wasn't asked whether Nevill had called him, and didn't state that there was only information from Jeremy. Bonnett wasn't questioned at the trial. If you are referring to the COLP enquiry, post the relevant COLP documents.
Jeremy's defense has not released their COLP interviews. Nor have they released the 2 statements that West provided. The burden rests with you not me to prove that hese statements and interviews leave open the possibility of a call from Nevill. You have not read any of them so have no ability to say such. You are just playing pathetic games though trying to pretend that if West had been asked at trial if he received a call from Nevill that he might have answered yes. Quite clearly he would have answered no.
If Nevill had already called West previously then West would not have had any reason to ask for Nevill's name, address and phone number. He already would have gotten such from Nevill. Nor woudl he have needed to put Jeremy on hold to contact the information oom to find out what police station covered that area and to find cars that could respond because he already would have found out and sent a car in response to Nevill's call. So he would have told Jeremy he already received a call from Nevill and already dispatched a car instea dof taking down information he already had and pretending he knew nothing about the situation.
Jeremy was worried by the fact the call was disconnected and then phone busy. He would have told Jeremy not to worry his father was still alive because he called police right after he called Jeremy and that is why the phone was busy.
Instead police checked the line to see if it was busy as Jeremy claimed and confirmed it was off the hook still. Had Nevill called it would have been used after calling Jeremy and thus not continuously off the hook.
Instead of facing reality you are humilating yourself by denying obvious facts and evidence to make ridiculous suggesitons.
This testimony leaves no question that West only asserts receiving a call from Jeremy not a call from Jeremy after speaking to Nevill:
(http://s29.postimg.org/aflo36thz/west.jpg)
(http://s28.postimg.org/esf5on13h/west2.jpg)
(http://s27.postimg.org/le3bgzqoz/west3.jpg)
The final nail in the coffin of your suggestion that West might have indicated a call from Nevill being received is that in his notebook he mad eno mention of it. His notebook is where he noted all the significant things that he did that day. Nothing about a call from Nevill and the defense was given a copy of that notebook and even referenced it in the cross examination. Likewise Bonnett's notebook was provided to the defense and nothing about a call from Nevill. Your claims are all baseless.
Bonnett's notebook and written statement mention a single call from West not multiple calls and in repsonse to West's call where he relayed Jeremy's message Bonnett sent CA7 not earlier. Had Nevill called he would have sent the car as a result to that call not Jeremy's.
Not necessarily. What mattered most was the information about Sheila. Bonnett's log doesn't state that Jeremy had been asked to come over.
Of course, but it was Pc West that tried the WHF number after Jeremy's call. Bonnett's reference to the line going dead is in his added remarks that mention information passed by the son of Mr. Bamber. Note that Pc West timed the line test at 3:42, which fits nicely with an immediate preceding call from Jeremy that lasted about six minutes. In your timeline, what was Pc West doing between 3:36 and 3:42?
No, the other way round. Jeremy gave 27 and Pc West wrote that on his disclosed log. Bonnett wrote 26, which indicates PC West told him 26, which in turn suggests Pc West was told 26, which in turn suggests Pc West was quoting information from Nevill, as Jeremy told him 27 (at about 3:36am).
Not necessarily. I was talking about a possible short period of time, perhaps just the time needed to listen at the door, then close the door, but he may have called the police straight away. Even if he replaced the handset after calling the police, that doesn't mean it wasn't taken off-hook again later. Jeremy said he tried the line several times and then called Sheila. He didn't say he tried the WHF number again after calling Sheila.
Transcript available? If not, how do you know what was said?
Obviously, Nevill's call to the police was concealed. The original reasons for that related to police failings, not a plan to fit up Jeremy.
There obcviously was no call from Nevill to concela and niether West nor Bonnett woudl have any reaosn on day 1 let alone all of August 1985 to conceal a call from nevill. It would have been in their notebooks and mentioned to Jeremy. Why was it significant to get so much information about Sheial from jeremy if Nevill had already provided it? Why would they ask Nevill's address and phone number if he had already provided it? Nevill woudl have been asked to provide all such infromation so they already woudl have had it and alreayd would have dispatched police.
Moreover, they would have had no need to check the line because they would KNOW that Nevill used the phone after speaking with Jeremy had he called police after speaking to Jeremy.
Eveyrthing you claim makes no sense and is totally unsupported by any of the evidence that you try to rely upon. Your claims have been throughly debunked. Ther eis nothing left for you to do other than admit defeat or say you don't care about logic or evidence you are so biased in favor of Jeremy that you choose to believe Neivll called despite not having a shred of proof to suggest such and a large amount of evidence prving you wrong.
-
Seriously, the alleged call from Nevill to the police is utterly bonkers, fictitious and desperate. It's absurd to even contemplate it's existence in my view.
The defence hasn't even put it forward as a complaint.
I think this follows on from what NGB and I were discussing. The Campaign Team and the legal team are different entities and regardless of the legal teams reluctance to correct the Campaign Teams mythology, it does not follow that the Campaign Team are accurate in any of their accusations.
It's also clear to me that the legal team should not be ridiculed for the Campaign Teams skullduggery.
I think this is a significant point. When a claim is so specious that the legal team won't touch it that pretty much tells you it is definitely invalid.
-
I think this is a significant point. When a claim is so specious that the legal team won't touch it that pretty much tells you it is definitely invalid.
That's about the size of it. It's tricky though, because some of the past legal teams have had their own acts of skullduggery. Not that I am suggesting anything untoward with the current team.
-
Not sure I do either tbh? ???
But if EP are being accused of hiding something and the timings are important why is it so important?
Is it to do with the fact that if the call was 3.36 and with what happened inbetween the car would never been dispatched at the time that it was ? so they had to prove it was 3.26?
Do you get what I mean? sort of? If they did not show both parts of the logs in court then I guess the one they did show did not tie up with Wests statement so they knew it would come up as a question so had to cover it by an investigation?
btw I do get the bits about being confused about sheilas surname - she was separated and some people like to go back to being called maiden name or may even be at an "inbetween stage" Also if you asked me the age of my children I might sometimes hesitate to come up with the right age very quickly - only by one year though :)
I. Timing
The time of the call from Jeremy to police and to Julie were significant because of the timeline of events that Jeremy gave. His story from early on was how he got disconnected then immediately called back and the line was busy. He claimed he called Julie after police. The timings are significant to help prove he called Julie first and called her before the time he even claimed to have received the call from Nevill. That is why the timing issues were a big deal.
II. Allegation fo a call to police by Nevill
The notion of Nevill making a call and trying to use the time differences in the log to try to pretend that was thought up recently but has no legs so the appeal team does not use such claim.
If Nevill had called and provided Sheila's name and age, his address and phone number, indicated who was staying at WHF that night and so forth then why would West ask Jeremy for this information? He would have no need to ask Jeremy because he would already have it. He would alreayd have sent acar as well. He would have told Jeremy that he got a busy signal because Nevill had phoned police after phoning him and that they already knew all about it and had already taken care of things by dispatchign a car so not to worry.
The whole Nevill call suggesiton is thus ludicrous and there is no way at all for Jeremy's legal team to make such an allegation.
-
That's about the size of it. It's tricky though, because some of the past legal teams have had their own acts of skullduggery. Not that I am suggesting anything untoward with the current team.
No doubt about that at all. I considered writing that his legla team made many asburd allegations in the past so this one has to be extra absurd for them to have to rejected it but thought better since that was different people. But not even the fake con-sartist lawyer tried making this claim(at least not that I am aware of)
-
No doubt about that at all. I considered writing that his legla team made many asburd allegations in the past so this one has to be extra absurd for them to have to rejected it but thought better since that was different people. But not even the fake con-sartist lawyer tried making this claim(at least not that I am aware of)
You are correct
-
No, it's not possible to intepret it the way you claim. Your interpretation is not supported by the plain language of the document.
Your intepretatiton is contradicted by all available evidence and logic and SOLELY stems from you being too biased to be rational. you are so desperate to find a way to defend Jeremy that you are absurdedly pretending that the log makes it appear that West told Bonnett that Nevill himself passed a message to West and that Bonnett simply neglected to mention such in his various statements as did West in his 2 statements, trial testimony and statement to COLP. You are trying to pretend that West and Bonneett just didn't say such because they were not asked. Your games are silly.
All you are doing is embarrassing yourself in the process.
I'm not adding anything. He wrote a message attributed to Nevill AKA Mr. Bamber. right after it he wrote, "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber after the phone went dead". What message was passed to the CD by the son of Mr. Bamber? The preceding message naturally because that is the message that Jeremy attributed to his father before the phone went dead.
You want to ignore the context, the plain language and even all the statements given by West and Bonnett to pretend that Bonnett's comment was that Jeremy just passed the message about Nevill having a collection of shotguns only. If that were the case then Bonnett would have written something to the effect of, "CD spoke to Mr Bamber's son afterward and he indicated Mr. Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410s." He would not write such in two sentences in the following manner:
"Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber after the phone went dead. Mr. Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410s"
If his comment was to just say Jeremy mentioned the shotgun collection he would have done it in a single sentence. Your straining betrays your bias it is that simple.
"Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber after the phone went dead." What message was passed to Jeremy BEFORE the phone went dead that was passed by Jeremy to the CD AFTER the
phone went dead? That his father told him Sheila had gone crazy and had a gun. There is no way at all to get around such and pretend the nonsense you are pretending.
Jeremy's defense has not released their COLP interviews. Nor have they released the 2 statements that West provided. The burden rests with you not me to prove that hese statements and interviews leave open the possibility of a call from Nevill. You have not read any of them so have no ability to say such. You are just playing pathetic games though trying to pretend that if West had been asked at trial if he received a call from Nevill that he might have answered yes. Quite clearly he would have answered no.
If Nevill had already called West previously then West would not have had any reason to ask for Nevill's name, address and phone number. He already would have gotten such from Nevill. Nor woudl he have needed to put Jeremy on hold to contact the information oom to find out what police station covered that area and to find cars that could respond because he already would have found out and sent a car in response to Nevill's call. So he would have told Jeremy he already received a call from Nevill and already dispatched a car instea dof taking down information he already had and pretending he knew nothing about the situation.
Jeremy was worried by the fact the call was disconnected and then phone busy. He would have told Jeremy not to worry his father was still alive because he called police right after he called Jeremy and that is why the phone was busy.
Instead police checked the line to see if it was busy as Jeremy claimed and confirmed it was off the hook still. Had Nevill called it would have been used after calling Jeremy and thus not continuously off the hook.
Instead of facing reality you are humilating yourself by denying obvious facts and evidence to make ridiculous suggesitons.
This testimony leaves no question that West only asserts receiving a call from Jeremy not a call from Jeremy after speaking to Nevill:
(http://s29.postimg.org/aflo36thz/west.jpg)
(http://s28.postimg.org/esf5on13h/west2.jpg)
(http://s27.postimg.org/le3bgzqoz/west3.jpg)
The final nail in the coffin of your suggestion that West might have indicated a call from Nevill being received is that in his notebook he mad eno mention of it. His notebook is where he noted all the significant things that he did that day. Nothing about a call from Nevill and the defense was given a copy of that notebook and even referenced it in the cross examination. Likewise Bonnett's notebook was provided to the defense and nothing about a call from Nevill. Your claims are all baseless.
Bonnett's notebook and written statement mention a single call from West not multiple calls and in repsonse to West's call where he relayed Jeremy's message Bonnett sent CA7 not earlier. Had Nevill called he would have sent the car as a result to that call not Jeremy's.
There obcviously was no call from Nevill to concela and niether West nor Bonnett woudl have any reaosn on day 1 let alone all of August 1985 to conceal a call from nevill. It would have been in their notebooks and mentioned to Jeremy. Why was it significant to get so much information about Sheial from jeremy if Nevill had already provided it? Why would they ask Nevill's address and phone number if he had already provided it? Nevill woudl have been asked to provide all such infromation so they already woudl have had it and alreayd would have dispatched police.
Moreover, they would have had no need to check the line because they would KNOW that Nevill used the phone after speaking with Jeremy had he called police after speaking to Jeremy.
Eveyrthing you claim makes no sense and is totally unsupported by any of the evidence that you try to rely upon. Your claims have been throughly debunked. Ther eis nothing left for you to do other than admit defeat or say you don't care about logic or evidence you are so biased in favor of Jeremy that you choose to believe Neivll called despite not having a shred of proof to suggest such and a large amount of evidence prving you wrong.
In order to give the alternative argument (Neville called) you have to change the facts, add new ones and take some away. It doesn't add up.
-
West testified and gave evidence.
Are you suggesting he lied or withheld information?
His evidence seems mostly truthful, but he was not asked whether he had received an earlier call from Nevill. He said he had no recollection of some things (presumably things that Jeremy recalled), which seems odd. It's a pity that he wasn't asked whom he spoke to at Witham. There's very little known that can be used to corroborate his evidence.
-
His evidence seems mostly truthful, but he was not asked whether he had received an earlier call from Nevill. He said he had no recollection of some things (presumably things that Jeremy recalled), which seems odd. It's a pity that he wasn't asked whom he spoke to at Witham. There's very little known that can be used to corroborate his evidence.
That's completely nuts. How could he be asked about something which didn't happen?
It is inconceivable that West would not have, at some point, mentioned a call from Nevill if such a call existed.
-
That's completely nuts. How could he be asked about something which didn't happen?
It is inconceivable that West would not have, at some point, mentioned a call from Nevill if such a call existed.
It's just common sense!!
-
His evidence seems mostly truthful, but he was not asked whether he had received an earlier call from Nevill. He said he had no recollection of some things (presumably things that Jeremy recalled), which seems odd. It's a pity that he wasn't asked whom he spoke to at Witham. There's very little known that can be used to corroborate his evidence.
Why would anyone ask him if he received a call from Nevill when it was patently obvious that no such call happened?
You attacked Caroline for not delving into the specifics like I was doing. Yet you are hiding from the very specifics I raised that put your claims to bed. While I have raised a large number of specifics 4 different points in particular address your claim that had West been asked he would have referred to a call from Nevill
1) West's pocketbook makes no mention of a call from Nevill only Jeremy.
2) If Nevill called first and provided all the details of Sheila's name and age, that she supposedly went crazy, was armed, who was present at WHF, WHF's address and phone number and so forth then WHY would West ask Jeremy these specifics again? You answer this question. Why would West not tell Jeremy Nevill already called so the matter was being taken care of and instead wast time to write down everything again pretending it was the first time he heard of it? Such makes no sense at all.
3) If Nevill called first why wouldn't Bonnett and West have dispatched a police car to repsond to WHF in response to such call? There is no question based on their statements and testimony that th epolice cars were all dispatched in response to Jeremy's call.
4) Why would police bother to do a line check at WHF and say the results match Jeremy's claim of the line being left off the hook after Jeremy's call if they knew Nevill had used the phone after calling Jeremy? For sure Nevill woudl have mentioned calling Jeremy beofre police and naturally that is not on any of the logs other than from the vantage of Jeremy receiving a call and it being disconnected. They would have told, Jeremy "don't to worry the disconnection didn't mean something nefarious. Your dad phoned me after calling you. He hung up fast to call us and that is why the phone was busy when you tried to call back." that is what a cop would tell him and then would no bother doing a line check yet. The line check would be after police at the scene could not contact those inside so tried phoning the house but found the line busy so could not get through. The line check was to check Jeremy's claims that upon the phone going dead the line was busy and there has been no contact with the occupants since. Had Nevill called afterwards then there would have been contact after the suppsoed disconnection.
I articulated plenty of other evidence to refute a call from Nevill but these are sufficient to completely refute your claim that it is possible West would have indicated at trial he received a call from Nevill had he been asked if he receive one and why no one even bothered to ask. It is readily apparent he would have said no.
-
If, hypothetically, Pc West publicly admits he did receive a call from Nevill, what would your attitude be? What would you want to be done about Essex Police, the relatives and Julie, and would you continue to post your current views on this forum, and claiming that Pc West had dementia or something?
-
If, hypothetically, Pc West publicly admits he did receive a call from Nevill, what would your attitude be? What would you want to be done about Essex Police, the relatives and Julie, and would you continue to post your current views on this forum, and claiming that Pc West had dementia or something?
But he won't because there was no call.
-
That's the nature of a hypothetical question. I'm asking you what you would do if he did. In that context, your opinion that he won't is irrelevant.
-
If, hypothetically, Pc West publicly admits he did receive a call from Nevill, what would your attitude be? What would you want to be done about Essex Police, the relatives and Julie, and would you continue to post your current views on this forum, and claiming that Pc West had dementia or something?
He would have to provide answers to a great number of questions before any such claim would be credible including the ones I posed to you of why would he ask Jeremy the same questions that Nevill would have answered, if Nevill called why he didn't dispatch a car in response to the call, what did he do so far as a log of this clal is concerned, why didn't he write it in his pocketbook, why didn't he mention this call in his statements and his testimony, did he notify someone at HQ Information Room of this call, which police did he notify of this call...
-
That's the nature of a hypothetical question. I'm asking you what you would do if he did. In that context, your opinion that he won't is irrelevant.
I think your question is mute because it didn't happen. I don't see your point in asking it?
-
If, hypothetically, Pc West publicly admits he did receive a call from Nevill, what would your attitude be? What would you want to be done about Essex Police, the relatives and Julie, and would you continue to post your current views on this forum, and claiming that Pc West had dementia or something?
Silly question. And what's with the smug ending "claiming PC West had dementia?" It's stupid to ignore evidence, just as it is stupid to try and create it, Reader.
-
He would have to provide answers to a great number of questions before any such claim would be credible including the ones I posed to you of why would he ask Jeremy the same questions that Nevill would have answered, if Nevill called why he didn't dispatch a car in response to the call, what did he do so far as a log of this clal is concerned, why didn't he write it in his pocketbook, why didn't he mention this call in his statements and his testimony, did he notify someone at HQ Information Room of this call, which police did he notify of this call...
Em in this instance your 'I' really should be a 'we'.
-
He would have to provide answers to a great number of questions before any such claim would be credible . . .
Assume my question supposes he publicly admitted receiving Nevill's call, but that all the details beyond that have been given only to the IPCC, who have made no comment. Do you just say his assertion isn't credible and carry on as before?
-
Assume my question supposes he publicly admitted receiving Nevill's call, but that all the details beyond that have been given only to the IPCC, who have made no comment. Do you just say his assertion isn't credible and carry on as before?
That's silly, he hasn't.
Why don't you assume a scenario that Jeremy publicly admits his guilt?
It doesn't work, I know, I'll change the facts. Look everybody it works. ::)
-
Assume my question supposes he publicly admitted receiving Nevill's call, but that all the details beyond that have been given only to the IPCC, who have made no comment. Do you just say his assertion isn't credible and carry on as before?
You're asking us to assume a whole new scenario, one that didn't happen. Here's an idea, why don't you try and look at the logs with a guilty Jeremy in mind - you'll see they make sense but only when viewing as one call - from Jeremy.
-
A hypothetical question asks about something that could happen. It's irrelevant that it hasn't happened yet. It's not a request that you change your view.
I'm essentially asking how you would react if Pc West became a whistle-blower by saying that Nevill had called, and seeking an investigation via the proper channels.
While that investigation was presumably in progress, would you just carry on posting here as normal with your present views?
-
A hypothetical question asks about something that could happen. It's irrelevant that is hasn't happened yet. It's not a request that you change your view.
I'm essentially asking how you would react if Pc West became a whistle-blower by saying that Nevill had called, and seeking an investigation via the proper channels.
While that investigation was presumably in progress, would you just carry on posting here as normal with your present views?
Of course not but that didn't and won't happen because there was no call. I don't see why you're asking the question - it seems silly. Unless of course you are really PC West and are about to make an earth shattering confession?
-
Let me put it slightly differently: if, hypothetically, Pc Collins admitted that he did see both Nevill and Sheila in the kitchen, and produced good evidence to back that up, what ought to be done about Essex Police and should it still be believed that Nevill didn't call the police? Also, would you continue to post here?
-
I think if that happened - then there would be some posters who would gladly put their hands up and admit they were wrong - and tbh would be pleased that the truth - whatever it is - would be finally out .
Some posters would disappear without comment. :)
-
Let me put it slightly differently: if, hypothetically, Pc Collins admitted that he did see both Nevill and Sheila in the kitchen, and produced good evidence to back that up, what ought to be done about Essex Police and should it still be believed that Nevill didn't call the police? Also, would you continue to post here?
That being the case, Jeremy should be freed immediately and receive a massive comp payout and help to readjust, EP should be hauled over the coals and made an example of. And I would still continue to post here. I would still say that Neville didn't call because it doesn't add up. I see what you're trying to get me to do but it doesn't add up whichever way you look at it because of the timings, the fact that West (or anyone else) didn't mention the call (at any time), because both logs give 'exactly' the same information and Bonnett's log actually states that it was received from West.
Now let me ask you, if Jeremy admitted to being responsible, would you believe him or would you insist that he was only admitting guilt because he knew he'd have a better chance of parole in the future and that the call from Neville was still possible? And would you still post in his defense here?
-
I think if that happened - then there would be some posters who would gladly put their hands up and admit they were wrong - and tbh would be pleased that the truth - whatever it is - would be finally out .
Some posters would disappear without comment. :)
Certainly I'd be the FIRST to admit defeat,without hesitation should it end that way. I'm that sort of a person.
-
Lookout things will become clear if all of JM statements were available
I think she is likely to change her story sometime soon
-
Hope so,Jackie. Something's got to give. Jeremy's the only one who hasn't changed his all along.! It's got to stand for a lot.
-
Hope so,Jackie. Something's got to give. Jeremy's the only one who hasn't changed his all along.! It's got to stand for a lot.
Who did he call first? Julie or the police? He's changed the answer to that quite often. Also, it's not always what he says (he's pretty much rehearsed the main points), it's his tendency to be evasive on certain issues that makes me suspicious.
-
On the morning of the 7th August 1985, when did he get dressed and put his shoes on, was it before speaking to the police or after?
-
On the morning of the 7th August 1985, when did he get dressed and put his shoes on, was it before speaking to the police or after?
During the 20 mins between talking to Neville and calling the police. ;)
-
During the 20 mins between talking to Neville and calling the police. ;)
So the call to the police was delayed not only by him searching for the phone numbers of both Witham and Chelmsford police station, he also opted to get dressed, comb his hair (did he brush his teeth? ) all before phoning the police? :o
And then after being put on hold for three minutes, he has audacity to ask what took them so long? :o
Weird. :-\
-
Why would Essex Police not mention a lot of things,such as not sending ambulances until 6am ? Wasting over 2 hours outside when two youngsters lives were at serious risk when the raid team were well equipped to storm the farmhouse ?
Have any members of any other police force to date,come across a " trick of the light " in their lines of duty ? PMSL if they have !
Why was it that several pathologists gave Sheilas' time of death as being 7.30am,yet EP didn't mention it ?
This is only a fraction of the amount of questions outstanding,to say nothing of all the files,photographs which were kept from the defence.
-
I thought Nevilles' call was in a log for all to see anyway ? For the publics eye,to those who hadn't believed of its existence.
-
Why would Essex Police not mention a lot of things,such as not sending ambulances until 6am ? Wasting over 2 hours outside when two youngsters lives were at serious risk when the raid team were well equipped to storm the farmhouse ?
Have any members of any other police force to date,come across a " trick of the light " in their lines of duty ? PMSL if they have !
Why was it that several pathologists gave Sheilas' time of death as being 7.30am,yet EP didn't mention it ?
This is only a fraction of the amount of questions outstanding,to say nothing of all the files,photographs which were kept from the defence.
Police records do mention the ambulances.
Police records detail police efforts including 6 armed police arriving at 5AM which was not enough to storm the residence let alone to storm it and also establish a perimeter.
Police records detail how they summoned extra officers in case they needed to storm the residence which seemed likely since no one inside would engage in dialogue and thus they hope of being able to talk them out peacefully was fading.
You kepe attacking them for following standard police instead of rushing in and risking the killer killing the hostages in response to police breaking in or even trying to escape through a different door- possibly with the hostages in tow.
Everything you have posted to date is nonsense and the aim of such nonsense is to divert attention from a question you don't want to answer.
You have no reasonable explanation for why West would not mention a call from Nevill to Jeremy and instead would pretend no such call was received and to ask Jeremy for all the information he already would have obtained for Nevill. It makes no sense at all to ask for information already obtained from the horse's mouth.
The other question asked is if Nevill had phoned police then why would West and Bonnett not send a police car in response to Nevill's call? The evidence clearly indicates that the cars sent were sent after Jeremy's call was received. Because you have no rational response you just falsely assert that CA7 was sent out becuase of Nevill's call even though that is blatantly untrue. You have stated such many times int he past including most recently in the poll thread about Nevill's call. You keep claiming you are so honest and will admit eror but you never do. You maintain the same bogus claims to the bitter end.
-
I thought Nevilles' call was in a log for all to see anyway ? For the publics eye,to those who hadn't believed of its existence.
You thought it was in a log based on what? This thread and 2 others that you have been responding to makes clear there were no logs referinging a call from Nevill.
-
I thought Nevilles' call was in a log for all to see anyway ? For the publics eye,to those who hadn't believed of its existence.
This whole thing has been brought up because there is no log.
You thought it was in a log based on what? This thread and 2 others that you have been responding to makes clear there were no logs referinging a call from Nevill.
My head hurts.
-
This whole thing has been brought up because there is no log.
My head hurts.
It shouldn't do.There's nothing in it to hurt. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It shouldn't do.There's nothing in it to hurt. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Shut up, Lookout.
-
This whole thing has been brought up because there is no log.
My head hurts.
Yeah mine to - the words 'groundhogs' and 'day' spring to mind!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yeah mine to - the words 'groundhogs' and 'day' spring to mind!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Pete Burns comes to my mine.... Round, round, baby round round..
-
Hey,listen,give me some credit.I'm out on a limb here. :-[
-
Hey,listen,give me some credit.I'm out on a limb here. :-[
You are doing your best Lookout and it can be lonely at times!
-
In Jeremys first statement he did say "about" 3.10 And so after that for any accuracy (because he may not have looked at his watch or a clock ) then we would really be relying on the police for the accuracy because they are the professionals and they are the ones with clocks - for a reason ::)So that gives him the time to try and call his father back and keep getting the engaged tone - then look up the number then call then wait and get annoyed because it was probably sinking in that it may be more serious than he first thought
So if they are saying 3.26 and then by the time they took information etc and contacted to arrange for the cars to go out . Then that all ties up with him ringing Julie after he called the police ( as he said originally ) and ties up with her original statement of getting the call about 3.30
So taking the alleged call from his father out of the scenario WHY were the police so keen to then twist the times that Julie received the call ? And why did they tell him they could prove he did not call Julie at 3.30?Why did they do an investigation about the timings in Sept ? If it was a simple mistake - which it looks like it was - I don't get why it was so important .
But I am sure Mat or someone else will tell me I am being thick.
-
In Jeremys first statement he did say "about" 3.10 And so after that for any accuracy (because he may not have looked at his watch or a clock ) then we would really be relying on the police for the accuracy because they are the professionals and they are the ones with clocks - for a reason ::)So that gives him the time to try and call his father back and keep getting the engaged tone - then look up the number then call then wait and get annoyed because it was probably sinking in that it may be more serious than he first thought
So if they are saying 3.26 and then by the time they took information etc and contacted to arrange for the cars to go out . Then that all ties up with him ringing Julie after he called the police ( as he said originally ) and ties up with her original statement of getting the call about 3.30
So taking the alleged call from his father out of the scenario WHY were the police so keen to then twist the times that Julie received the call ? And why did they tell him they could prove he did not call Julie at 3.30?Why did they do an investigation about the timings in Sept ? If it was a simple mistake - which it looks like it was - I don't get why it was so important .
But I am sure Mat or someone else will tell me I am being thick.
He couldn't have been on the phone to Julie at 03:30 because he was still talking to police at that time.
-
You are doing your best Lookout and it can be lonely at times!
Aww,NGB,that's cheered me up no end.x I'll be fine,onwards and upwards.
-
He couldn't have been on the phone to Julie at 03:30 because he was still talking to police at that time.
Ok so say that sequence was correct they dispatched the car at 3.35 - so just after that then ? So if he had not looked at a clock and he was estimating it could have been about 3.36 ish - quick call get dressed , leave ?
So all that he did could have happened between 3.10 to 3.15 and about 3.35 to 3.40 ?
-
Thinking about it - I think it would be because they wanted to prove he called Julie before the police because it would in their eyes incriminate him .
Hence all the changes in timings and getting the flatmates involved .
they could not prove the sequence - but that's what they believed happened and that's what they wanted to prove.
-
In Jeremys first statement he did say "about" 3.10 And so after that for any accuracy (because he may not have looked at his watch or a clock ) then we would really be relying on the police for the accuracy because they are the professionals and they are the ones with clocks - for a reason ::)So that gives him the time to try and call his father back and keep getting the engaged tone - then look up the number then call then wait and get annoyed because it was probably sinking in that it may be more serious than he first thought
So if they are saying 3.26 and then by the time they took information etc and contacted to arrange for the cars to go out . Then that all ties up with him ringing Julie after he called the police ( as he said originally ) and ties up with her original statement of getting the call about 3.30
So taking the alleged call from his father out of the scenario WHY were the police so keen to then twist the times that Julie received the call ? And why did they tell him they could prove he did not call Julie at 3.30?Why did they do an investigation about the timings in Sept ? If it was a simple mistake - which it looks like it was - I don't get why it was so important .
But I am sure Mat or someone else will tell me I am being thick.
That's right. It was 03.10 when Jeremy was wakened by his phone ringing,at which time he'd alleged that it was his father telling him that Sheila had gone crazy with " the gun ".
At 03.20,Jeremy rang Chelmsford police station and spoke to PC West about his fathers' call.
At 03.26 Malcolm Bonnett had a radio communication from PC West to request a car to WHF.
It was after 03.30 that Jeremy rang JM.
Then appx 03.35/03.40 Jeremy drove from his home in Goldhanger to WHF .
Neville could well have rang the police also,but------------------was there really any need when Jeremy had already done so ? He didn't HAVE to do,did he ?? It's no big deal if the man wasn't able to,but it sure as Hell doesn't put Jeremy in the spotlight if the call didn't happen.
What earthly difference does it make whether Neville rang or not ? He had already relayed the situation to Jeremy,and because I believe him it wouldn't make the slightest difference either way.
Who was it who put the argument forward that Neville phoned the police,anyway ?
-
Is it the be-all and end-all if Neville didn't ring the police ? No,of course it isn't.
-
That's right. It was 03.10 when Jeremy was wakened by his phone ringing,at which time he'd alleged that it was his father telling him that Sheila had gone crazy with " the gun ".
At 03.20,Jeremy rang Chelmsford police station and spoke to PC West about his fathers' call.
At 03.26 Malcolm Bonnett had a radio communication from PC West to request a car to WHF.
It was after 03.30 that Jeremy rang JM.
Then appx 03.35/03.40 Jeremy drove from his home in Goldhanger to WHF .
Neville could well have rang the police also,but------------------was there really any need when Jeremy had already done so ? He didn't HAVE to do,did he ?? It's no big deal if the man wasn't able to,but it sure as Hell doesn't put Jeremy in the spotlight if the call didn't happen.
What earthly difference does it make whether Neville rang or not ? He had already relayed the situation to Jeremy,and because I believe him it wouldn't make the slightest difference either way.
Who was it who put the argument forward that Neville phoned the police,anyway ?
1)Julie and her roomate say Jeremy's call did not come after 3:30AM so the claim it did conflicts with all 4 of their claims. That suggests the call was before Jeremy phoned police.
2) Assuming it took Jeremy 4 minutes to state his case before West phoned Bonnett that brings us to 3:22 as the earliest that Jeremy phoned police. There is disagreement over how long that took though with West suggesitng only 1 minute before he phoned Bonnett.
3) If you are asking who was the first to come up with the story that Nevill called police I don't think that question will ever be answered. It is not necessary to know in order to test the claim and see that it has no basis in fact though.
-
THE Phone-call----------another grey area which is OPEN to interpretation. As is the case of a few other areas whether you feel Jeremy is the killer or not. It could be anyone in the very same situation as himself. Surely justice is what's most important for those who don't like Jeremy.
-
THE Phone-call----------another grey area which is OPEN to interpretation. As is the case of a few other areas whether you feel Jeremy is the killer or not. It could be anyone in the very same situation as himself. Surely justice is what's most important for those who don't like Jeremy.
Which phone call are you referring to? Given the various documented calls between various people and several undocumented calls merely alleged to have taken place it is important to specify.
-
The one Neville made to the police. What's the big deal if he didn't make that call ?
-
well none really if they could prove such a call was made it would be almost certan proof of innocence but as i see it they cant prove it.
but the fact but the fact it dident happen doesn't prove guilt.
i think weather neviles call to jeremy happpend is the real clincer of guilt or innocence.
-
The one Neville made to the police. What's the big deal if he didn't make that call ?
Jeremy has no proof Nevill phoned him at all let alone proof Nevill said anything about Sheila going crazy and having a gun.
Those Jerey supporters who insist Nevill called police himself say this is proof that Sheila did go crazy and had a gun and that Jeremy was not merely making it up and thus Jeremy did receive a call from Nevill as he claimed.
Without proof of a call from Nevill such argument evaporates and we are back to no evidence to support Jeremy's claims.
That is the significance.
-
My argument is-------why would Neville have to call the police ?
Because it's my belief that Jeremy is innocent------he'd already made that call when he heard the desperation in his fathers' voice,so why the need for Neville to ring the police as well ?
The guilters will just have to talk between themselves. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Jeremy was very badly let down during the investigation,as for starters,no time of death was recorded at the scene.
-
the really significant call is neviles call to jeremy if it dident happen it proves him guilty if it did almost certan proof of innocence.
-
My argument is-------why would Neville have to call the police ?
Because it's my belief that Jeremy is innocent------he'd already made that call when he heard the desperation in his fathers' voice,so why the need for Neville to ring the police as well ?
The guilters will just have to talk between themselves. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Jeremy was very badly let down during the investigation,as for starters,no time of death was recorded at the scene.
The guilters agree that had Nevill would not phone police. It is some Jeremy supporters who asserted such claim. You were one of them but seem to have reversed course.
-
My argument is-------why would Neville have to call the police ?
Because it's my belief that Jeremy is innocent------he'd already made that call when he heard the desperation in his fathers' voice,so why the need for Neville to ring the police as well ?
The guilters will just have to talk between themselves. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Jeremy was very badly let down during the investigation,as for starters,no time of death was recorded at the scene.
Perhaps you should take that up with the campaign team? They are the people alleging that Neville called the police.
-
No,I've stayed the course and continue to do so because there are so many discrepancies that no way was justice ever done as regards this case. The jury should have been chased out if 10 of them couldn't see through either the police or the relatives. Speaking of which,weren't they ordered out of the courtroom at some point ? Why ?
If you were honest,regardless whether it was Jeremy or not,would you have thought justice had been done,taking all things into consideration ?
-
the really significant call is neviles call to jeremy if it dident happen it proves him guilty if it did almost certan proof of innocence.
That's true but unfortunately, he can't prove it ever happened and with altering the story and times to fit in a call from Neville to the police, he has weakened the validity of his claim that Neville ever called him.
-
No,I've stayed the course and continue to do so because there are so many discrepancies that no way was justice ever done as regards this case. The jury should have been chased out if 10 of them couldn't see through either the police or the relatives. Speaking of which,weren't they ordered out of the courtroom at some point ? Why ?
If you were honest,regardless whether it was Jeremy or not,would you have thought justice had been done,taking all things into consideration ?
If it was Jeremy, yes I do feel justice has been done - everything aside, if he is responsible for murdering 5 people just for money, then he is where he should be.
-
If you were honest,regardless whether it was Jeremy or not,would you have thought justice had been done,taking all things into consideration ?
I'm honest, I'm not biased against Jeremy. The evidence is against him convincingly. He's where I'd like him, I know you're in favour of the death penalty Lookout, as am I, and rhis is actual a case where I wish the death penalty was still in existence in this country, I hate child killers - whole different debate though.
-
No,I've stayed the course and continue to do so because there are so many discrepancies that no way was justice ever done as regards this case. The jury should have been chased out if 10 of them couldn't see through either the police or the relatives. Speaking of which,weren't they ordered out of the courtroom at some point ? Why ?
If you were honest,regardless whether it was Jeremy or not,would you have thought justice had been done,taking all things into consideration ?
Most of the discrepancies are between the facts and Jeremy's account. Most of the things you raise are myths. Right now you are talking about the myth that Sheila was going to have her kids taken away. If we get you to shed all the myths you keep spekaing of you won't have much left to talk about.
Justice was served in this case there is not a shred of evidence to suggest Jeremy's innocence.
-
Perhaps you should take that up with the campaign team? They are the people alleging that Neville called the police.
I'm saying it matters not whether it's said that he did or didn't.Jeremy had called them anyway after his father had called him.
I'm also asking who started the fiasco as to whether Neville phoned or not ? Or did it start as a suggestion to further push Jeremy into a cell ? There was little else to go on.?
-
That's true but unfortunately, he can't prove it ever happened and with altering the story and times to fit in a call from Neville to the police, he has weakened the validity of his claim that Neville ever called him.
i my opinion the police thought that call happend.
becouse they seemed to trying to prove he phoned himself.
-
i my opinion the police thought that call happend.
becouse they seemed to trying to prove he phoned himself.
Jeremy claimed it did. The police investigated it, found no available evidence. Doesn't sound like they thought it happened.
-
they tried to prove he could get there and back on a bike withen the time between the phonecalls
they wouldent of bothered doing that if they thought it dident happen.
-
It was known as clutching at straws,on the part of the police. You see,that smacks of a cover-up straight away.
-
well what other reson for a policeman to get on a bike ride bettween the 2 locations and time it.
-
Also known as playing for time.
Did any of them carry out that task in the dead of night,along the sea-wall on a heavy sit-up-and-beg bike with not a light in sight ?
-
well if the phonecall dident happen it wouldn't matter how long jeremy took to get there because he had planty of time.
so there would be no need for the police to try and work out how long he took to get there.
-
The guilters rarely consider Jeremy's likely state of mind on 7th August if he's innocent.
They usually assert or imply that Jeremy, if innocent, must have been woken by Nevill at about 3:10am. If Jeremy is innocent, that doesn't make sense, as we know very little about why Jeremy said 3:10am and so it shouldn't be assumed that time is accurate.
In Jeremy's statement of 7th August, he says Nevill called him at about 3:10am, but doesn't state how that call ended, then he says he immediately tried to call Nevill back, but got the engaged tone, and then he says he immediately phoned Chelmsford Police to inform them of what had happened. If Jeremy was guilty, that makes no sense, as it would be easy for EP to prove that his summary was quite inaccurate. Also, it forms a poor alibi. If Jeremy was innocent, the timing still can't be right, but an explanation is available - Jeremy didn't know at what time Nevill called and estimated it incorrectly, then he oversimplified what happened after that, and twice used the word "immediately" inaccurately. That's understandable, given his likely state of mind at the time, and that he was close to concluding his statement. He gave very little detail about his conversation with Pc West in the statement, and no indication of its duration.
On the basis of the above, it's clearly unreasonable to say that Jeremy was stating he phoned Julie after phoning the police. Jeremy continued his statement by saying he then went to WHF, where he met the police and went with them to the farm house and heard a dog whining, and then on police advice everyone backed away from the house. This was again a highly simplified account, omitting many details (which is odd if Jeremy was guilty). At this point, Jeremy states "I phoned my girlfriend up from my house at 3:25 a.m. to tell her something appeared wrong and I again phoned her at 5:45 a.m. from a telephone kiosk to inform her what was happening and not to go to work as it was evident at this stage that something was wrong." That's how his statement ended.
What seems to have happened is this: after some conversation with the police, Jeremy gave several pages of information about various earlier events and circumstances because the police didn't already have that information. Then he gave a highly simplified and shortened account of what happened from the time when Nevill called him, possibly because there seemed to be no need to go into lots of detail about things that the police were largely aware of anyway.
Note that for some reason EP haven't released the original handwritten version of Jeremy's statements, so we don't know whether the typed versions are accurate. Jeremy intimated that he thought they weren't in a letter he sent to mike tesko. We know that Ds Jones later claimed that Jeremy had said verbally that he'd called Julie after calling the police, but we can't check that conversation.
-
im guessing if they havent relased the handwrittan statements then typed ones must be inacrate.
-
The guilters rarely consider Jeremy's likely state of mind on 7th August if he's innocent.
They usually assert or imply that Jeremy, if innocent, must have been woken by Nevill at about 3:10am. If Jeremy is innocent, that doesn't make sense, as we know very little about why Jeremy said 3:10am and so it shouldn't be assumed that time is accurate.
In Jeremy's statement of 7th August, he says Nevill called him at about 3:10am, but doesn't state how that call ended, then he says he immediately tried to call Nevill back, but got the engaged tone, and then he says he immediately phoned Chelmsford Police to inform them of what had happened. If Jeremy was guilty, that makes no sense, as it would be easy for EP to prove that his summary was quite inaccurate. Also, it forms a poor alibi. If Jeremy was innocent, the timing still can't be right, but an explanation is available - Jeremy didn't know at what time Nevill called and estimated it incorrectly, then he oversimplified what happened after that, and twice used the word "immediately" inaccurately. That's understandable, given his likely state of mind at the time, and that he was close to concluding his statement. He gave very little detail about his conversation with Pc West in the statement, and no indication of its duration.
On the basis of the above, it's clearly unreasonable to say that Jeremy was stating he phoned Julie after phoning the police. Jeremy continued his statement by saying he then went to WHF, where he met the police and went with them to the farm house and heard a dog whining, and then on police advice everyone backed away from the house. This was again a highly simplified account, omitting many details (which is odd if Jeremy was guilty). At this point, Jeremy states "I phoned my girlfriend up from my house at 3:25 a.m. to tell her something appeared wrong and I again phoned her at 5:45 a.m. from a telephone kiosk to inform her what was happening and not to go to work as it was evident at this stage that something was wrong." That's how his statement ended.
What seems to have happened is this: after some conversation with the police, Jeremy gave several pages of information about various earlier events and circumstances because the police didn't already have that information. Then he gave a highly simplified and shortened account of what happened from the time when Nevill called him, possibly because there seemed to be no need to go into lots of detail about things that the police were largely aware of anyway.
Note that for some reason EP haven't released the original handwritten version of Jeremy's statements, so we don't know whether the typed versions are accurate. Jeremy intimated that he thought they weren't in a letter he sent to mike tesko. We know that Ds Jones later claimed that Jeremy had said verbally that he'd called Julie after calling the police, but we can't check that conversation.
Jeremy's WS said he got Neville's call at 3.10am. He then said he immediately phoned the police. Although the police call was 16 minutes later.
The WS was drawn up months later. Jeremy would not be in shock.
There is a thread on those 16 minutes. And his WS.
-
The guilters rarely consider Jeremy's likely state of mind on 7th August if he's innocent.
They usually assert or imply that Jeremy, if innocent, must have been woken by Nevill at about 3:10am. If Jeremy is innocent, that doesn't make sense, as we know very little about why Jeremy said 3:10am and so it shouldn't be assumed that time is accurate.
In Jeremy's statement of 7th August, he says Nevill called him at about 3:10am, but doesn't state how that call ended, then he says he immediately tried to call Nevill back, but got the engaged tone, and then he says he immediately phoned Chelmsford Police to inform them of what had happened. If Jeremy was guilty, that makes no sense, as it would be easy for EP to prove that his summary was quite inaccurate. Also, it forms a poor alibi. If Jeremy was innocent, the timing still can't be right, but an explanation is available - Jeremy didn't know at what time Nevill called and estimated it incorrectly, then he oversimplified what happened after that, and twice used the word "immediately" inaccurately. That's understandable, given his likely state of mind at the time, and that he was close to concluding his statement. He gave very little detail about his conversation with Pc West in the statement, and no indication of its duration.
On the basis of the above, it's clearly unreasonable to say that Jeremy was stating he phoned Julie after phoning the police. Jeremy continued his statement by saying he then went to WHF, where he met the police and went with them to the farm house and heard a dog whining, and then on police advice everyone backed away from the house. This was again a highly simplified account, omitting many details (which is odd if Jeremy was guilty). At this point, Jeremy states "I phoned my girlfriend up from my house at 3:25 a.m. to tell her something appeared wrong and I again phoned her at 5:45 a.m. from a telephone kiosk to inform her what was happening and not to go to work as it was evident at this stage that something was wrong." That's how his statement ended.
What seems to have happened is this: after some conversation with the police, Jeremy gave several pages of information about various earlier events and circumstances because the police didn't already have that information. Then he gave a highly simplified and shortened account of what happened from the time when Nevill called him, possibly because there seemed to be no need to go into lots of detail about things that the police were largely aware of anyway.
Note that for some reason EP haven't released the original handwritten version of Jeremy's statements, so we don't know whether the typed versions are accurate. Jeremy intimated that he thought they weren't in a letter he sent to mike tesko. We know that Ds Jones later claimed that Jeremy had said verbally that he'd called Julie after calling the police, but we can't check that conversation.
how much atention was he actully paying to what the time was.
-
how much atention was he actully paying to what the time was.
Probably a lot.
When the downstairs phone eventually wakes him up from 'sleeping like a log'. Which could take minutes. Unless he had his bedroom door shut, in which case he would not hear it at all. Hang on wouldn't the answering machine kick in after about 6 rings. But lets not go there.
Anyway. When eventually waking, he would check the time. Then swear because he has been woken at 3.10am. Knowing Jeremy he would try to ignore the ringing phone, until reluctantly going downstairs, in a bad mood at being woken at 3.10am.
It is not often a phone wakes people at this time. So I do not believe he would forget. Especially as it was an unforgettable phone call.
-
Adam I agree with you Jeremy would not have forgotten the exact time of his Father's phone had it happened.
-
Probably a lot.
When the downstairs phone eventually wakes him up from 'sleeping like a log'. Which could take minutes. Unless he had his bedroom door shut, in which case he would not hear it at all. Hang on wouldn't the answering machine kick in after about 6 rings. But lets not go there.
Anyway. When eventually waking, he would check the time. Then swear because he has been woken at 3.10am. Knowing Jeremy he would try to ignore the ringing phone, until reluctantly going downstairs, in a bad mood at being woken at 3.10am.
It is not often a phone wakes people at this time. So I do not believe he would forget. Especially as it was an unforgettable phone call.
even if he was given a very shocking message.
-
even if he was given a very shocking message.
If it was THAT shocking, why didn't he call 999 instead of calling Julie and then looking for a local cop shop number and then another when the first gave no reply?
-
It wasn't THAT shocking. Also Julie and most of her flatmates were woken by Jeremy's call and didn't later know the exact time of it.
Jeremy's WS said he got Neville's call at 3.10am. He then said he immediately phoned the police. Although the police call was 16 minutes later.
Jeremy's first statement was made on 7th August, when Jeremy would have been in shock and very upset, so the presence of some mistakes is understandable.
It is not often a phone wakes people at this time. So I do not believe he would forget. Especially as it was an unforgettable phone call.
There is no evidence that Jeremy's telephone was in a place where a clock was visible. His answering machine would not have had its own clock. Hence it's quite possible that Jeremy didn't know when he answered the telephone what the time was, and so had to estimate the times he gave in his statement.
-
It wasn't THAT shocking. Also Julie and most of her flatmates were woken by Jeremy's call and didn't later know the exact time of it.
Jeremy's first statement was made on 7th August, when Jeremy would have been in shock and very upset, so the presence of some mistakes is understandable.
There is no evidence that Jeremy's telephone was in a place where a clock was visible. His answering machine would not have had its own clock. Hence it's quite possible that Jeremy didn't know when he answered the telephone what the time was, and so had to estimate the times he gave in his statement.
It would have been far more suspicious if Jeremy had remembered everything word for word.
-
If it was THAT shocking, why didn't he call 999 instead of calling Julie and then looking for a local cop shop number and then another when the first gave no reply?
Somewhere on here is a portion of his trial testmony. In it he said that at first he didn't think there was any urgency in his father's message. He said only afte rhe thought about it a while did he become concerned. So he seemd to be admitting he didn't call police right away but also had no reason to call Julie at that point. That is why lawyers tell their clients not to testify, they often end up saying things that make matters even worse. If you were a juror what would you think about that?
-
Somewhere on here is a portion of his trial testmony. In it he said that at first he didn't think there was any urgency in his father's message. He said only afte rhe thought about it a while did he become concerned. So he seemd to be admitting he didn't call police right away but also had no reason to call Julie at that point. That is why lawyers tell their clients not to testify, they often end up saying things that make matters even worse. If you were a juror what would you think about that?
I think most of the jurors would think it incredible that anyone hearing the words 'crazy' and 'gun' at 03:10am wouldn't be worried and at the very least call 999 - beginning with the words "This may be nothing but ......" No one calls at that time if it isn't urgent - that being the case, Neville would have called the police using 999 and not Jeremy.
-
It depends which info is read for timings,as all are different,so whatever a persons' stance is,they'll choose the times,etc that fit their scenarios.
It's called going round in circles. ;D ;D
-
It depends which info is read for timings,as all are different,so whatever a persons' stance is,they'll choose the times,etc that fit their scenarios.
It's called going round in circles. ;D ;D
I'm going off what Jeremy said himself and the call logs.
-
I think most of the jurors would think it incredible that anyone hearing the words 'crazy' and 'gun' at 03:10am wouldn't be worried and at the very least call 999 - beginning with the words "This may be nothing but ......" No one calls at that time if it isn't urgent - that being the case, Neville would have called the police using 999 and not Jeremy.
There are indeed several unlikely calls -
Neville to Jeremy - Not in a million years.
Neville calling a local police station rather than 999 - unlikely.
Jeremy calling Chelmsford instead of Witham or 999 - Ha ha.
Jeremy calling Julie - eh ?
Neither Neville or Jeremy not calling the Folkes's. Discussed in a previous thread - strange as they were two adults based at WHF.
-
There are indeed several unlikely calls -
Neville to Jeremy - Not in a million years.
Neville calling a local police station rather than 999 - unlikely.
Jeremy calling Chelmsford instead of Witham or 999 - Ha ha.
Jeremy calling Julie - eh ?
Neither Neville or Jeremy not calling the Folkes's. Discussed in a previous thread.
Exactly - you wouldn't make it up would you? :) :) :) :) :)
-
I really don't know how some of you can state as fact - Nevill would simply have called 999,Jeremy would have called 999,Nevill would have done this and that. NONE of us knew him! Nevill was a private man,we know this as a FACT. And Jeremy had stated that he didn't dial 999 as he didn't want the police to go to whf with lights and sirens and frighten his poorly sister. None of us can know if Nevill had had to use the police services in the past,and if so,there is EVERY possibility that he preferred to call the local station rather than 999,especially where his daughter was concerned. He would have known many of the officers in his capacity as a magistrate. And we know for a FACT that Nevill regarded his daughter's illness as a private family matter. Clearly both June and Jeremy did too.
-
I wholeheartedly agree Jansus. Very well and understandably put.
-
I really don't know how some of you can state as fact - Nevill would simply have called 999,Jeremy would have called 999,Nevill would have done this and that. NONE of us knew him! Nevill was a private man,we know this as a FACT. And Jeremy had stated that he didn't dial 999 as he didn't want the police to go to whf with lights and sirens and frighten his poorly sister. None of us can know if Nevill had had to use the police services in the past,and if so,there is EVERY possibility that he preferred to call the local station rather than 999,especially where his daughter was concerned. He would have known many of the officers in his capacity as a magistrate. And we know for a FACT that Nevill regarded his daughter's illness as a private family matter. Clearly both June and Jeremy did too.
1) It is contradictory to claim he would be a private man so would call Jeremy but then would 5 seconds later call police anyway.
2) It is absurd he would be so worried as to call police and yet to take time to lookup a locat station instea dof dialing 999 which is superior because you don't have to look up anything that is why it is a number easy to remember.
3) If he is so panicky why wouldn'the arm himself? The kitchen was full of potential weapons including guns!
4) If he is so panicky why would he leave June and the boys in bed?
The more you look at it the more Jeremy supporter claims make no sense ESPECIALLY the nonsense about Nevill phoning police.
-
I am not alleging that Nevill called the police. I was offering an opinion on why the Bamber family may have preferred to speak to officers at a local station as opposed to calling 999.
-
I am not alleging that Nevill called the police. I was offering an opinion on why the Bamber family may have preferred to speak to officers at a local station as opposed to calling 999.
If Neville wanted to keep things private, as Jeremy claimed, wouldn't it be better to call 999. Everyone would know him at a local police station.
-
That is a very fair point,but it IS a fact that Nevill was a very private man.
-
Neville was a rich farmer in a small village. Also a magistrate. And was a manager of a caravan site.
The whole village seemed to turn up for his funeral.
Perhaps not that private.
-
Adam what tyler means Ralph Bamber was a very private man in that he did not want people knowing his business. I guess the family were very well liked in the village and such a tragedy everyone would turn up.
-
During Nevilles' life he was private. A funeral is where people pay their respects, so privacy doesn't come into it unless stated.
-
'Nevill was a manager of a caravan site' source please.
-
If Neville wanted to keep things private, as Jeremy claimed, wouldn't it be better to call 999. Everyone would know him at a local police station.
That is a very fair point,but it IS a fact that Nevill was a very private man.
999 is not like calling the central government so that local police don't know. 999 dispatchers contact local police.