Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on August 27, 2014, 11:24:AM
-
I'm making a separate thread for this because it's quite an important aspect (given the number of times it's been discussed).
The timings must surely be wrong? Bonnet actually states that he received a call from CD 1990 (West) at 03:26. If the call is being relayed to him by West at 03:26, Jeremy MUST have called 'before' then with enough time to explain to West his story and for West to have contacted Bonnet.
-
You sound like Adam. ;D
-
You sound like Adam. ;D
OOOOO!! That's not nice!! :o
However, I'm rising above it :P. You didn't answer the question though, how can Bonnet receive a call from West at 03:26, after Jeremy had called him and yet West has recorded the time of Jeremy's call as 03:36, which is 10 minutes AFTER he relays Jeremy's call t Bonnet? Bit mad??? ??? ??? ???
-
I'm making a separate thread for this because it's quite an important aspect (given the number of times it's been discussed).
The timings must surely be wrong? Bonnet actually states that he received a call from CD 1990 (West) at 03:26. If the call is being relayed to him by West at 03:26, Jeremy MUST have called 'before' then with enough time to explain to West his story and for West to have contacted Bonnet.
so that would be 3;21 at the latest that is of course if west has recorded the time correctly.
-
OOOOO!! That's not nice!! :o
However, I'm rising above it :P. You didn't answer the question though, how can Bonnet receive a call from West at 03:26, after Jeremy had called him and yet West has recorded the time of Jeremy's call as 03:36, which is 10 minutes AFTER he relays Jeremy's call t Bonnet? Bit mad??? ??? ??? ???
Sorry, I apologise. :-[
Clearly it's not possible. West, for whatever reason, recorded the time of Jeremy's call incorrectly.
-
Sorry, I apologise. :-[
Clearly it's not possible. West, for whatever reason, recorded the time of Jeremy's call incorrectly.
I agree but Jeremy's call MUST (by the same token) have been BEFORE 03:26, if that was the time of West's call to Bonnet?
-
or west has written the time down incorrectly.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1103.msg34166.html#msg34166
West received his phone call from Jeremy at 3.36. It was recorded at this time. But was obviously an error and was 3.26. See link.
-
West contacted Witham police station himself, and told Jeremy a car was it's way.
-
Jeremy claimed he had tried to contact Witham police station. But got no answer.
West rang Witham, and guess what ?
-
I agree but Jeremy's call MUST (by the same token) have been BEFORE 03:26, if that was the time of West's call to Bonnet?
Yes, West indicates that he spoke to JB before making the call to Bonnett, so the call from JB to West is clearly shortly before the call from West to Bonnet which as we know was recorded at 3:26 by Bonnett. Therefore the call from JB to West must have taken place at say 3:20-3:25 depending on how long JB and West spoke, prior to West then contacting Bonnett.
-
Yes, West indicates that he spoke to JB before making the call to Bonnett, so the call from JB to West is clearly shortly before the call from West to Bonnet which as we know was recorded at 3:26 by Bonnett. Therefore the call from JB to West must have taken place at say 3:20-3:25 depending on how long JB and West spoke, prior to West then contacting Bonnett.
So, if the call from Jeremy was much earlier, it has quite a few implications. It was alleged that he called Julie as late as 3:30, but that would make the call 'after' the call to the police so his timing of his call to Julie (which I 'think' was about 03:15) is probably more accurate if he called her before the police? Also, it kind of clears up the notion that cars were dispatched 'before' his call?
-
but there one thing if west can translate a call from jeremy as if it was a call from Nevile his time keeping any more accurate.
-
So, if the call from Jeremy was much earlier, it has quite a few implications. It was alleged that he called Julie as late as 3:30, but that would make the call 'after' the call to the police so his timing of his call to Julie (which I 'think' was about 03:15) is probably more accurate if he called her before the police? Also, it kind of clears up the notion that cars were dispatched 'before' his call?
Well obviously police cars would not have been dispatched before they were made aware of an incident. :D
He's claimed two different versions of whether he called Julie before or after the police.
He called Julie first, but couldn't talk for long because he had to call the police?
He called Julie second because he was p***** off at the police?
Going from her flat mates testimony and that I don't recall seeing Julie mention that JB had said he'd called the police when he spoke to her, it would appear to me that he spoke to Julie first and the police second.
-
Well obviously police cars would not have been dispatched before they were made aware of an incident. :D
He's claimed two different versions of whether he called Julie before or after the police.
He called Julie first, but couldn't talk for long because he had to call the police?
He called Julie second because he was p***** off at the police?
Going from her flat mates testimony and that I don't recall seeing Julie mention that JB had said he'd called the police when he spoke to her, it would appear to me that he spoke to Julie first and the police second.
Whichever version is correct, he has clearly lied, it's not just a 'muddle up' as he's then extended the explanation to try and convince people that he's telling the truth by justifying why he did one action or the other.
He seems to do this regularly, you don't just get an answer to a question, you also get an argument as to why he must be telling the truth.
-
Harters did he mention police at all in the phone call to Julie if he did would she have said she was going back to her bed and told him to do the same :'(
-
how long was the phone call did he get a chance to say what he wanted to say before she decided she wasn't interested.
-
Harters did he mention police at all in the phone call to Julie if he did would she have said she was going back to her bed and told him to do the same :'(
It is common knowledge what Jeremy said to Julie.
Have you not read the 2002 appeal transcript ?
Shame on you.
-
how long was the phone call did he get a chance to say before she decided she wasn't interested.
I don´t think we know the content of the phonecall in its entirety. Sentences that were "useful" were picked out and used out of context.
To me that is clear due to the lack of logic in Julie´s account.
-
My dear Adam of course I have read it I was just making a point really not asking a question as such ;)
-
I don´t think we know the content of the phonecall in its entirety. Sentences that were "useful" were picked out and used out of context.
To me that is clear due to the lack of logic in Julie´s account.
'Everything is going well. There is something wrong at the farm. I have not slept all night'.
Julie said this is what she heard. Jeremy said 'no comment' when asked by the police.
Eventually when compiling his WS he said he phoned Julie to say 'there is something wrong at the farm'. Which corresponds with some of Julies statement.
-
Harters did he mention police at all in the phone call to Julie if he did would she have said she was going back to her bed and told him to do the same :'(
Not that I have seen, I'd find it unlikely for him to have mentioned that to Julie given her apparent lack of interest, but we don't have all the details and to be fair they were both a bit odd, so who knows. :-\
-
My dear Adam of course I have read it I was just making a point really not asking a question as such ;)
All 511 points. I am impressed.
-
I don´t think we know the content of the phonecall in its entirety. Sentences that were "useful" were picked out and used out of context.
To me that is clear due to the lack of logic in Julie´s account.
well it was 3 am or later so you could excuse her not remembering exactly what was said.
though as has said she he had told her he was going to kill them all you would think be a bit more curious.
-
Adam my aim now on this forum is to impress you to make up for upsetting you :D :D :D
-
Adam my aim now on this forum is to impress you to make up for upsetting you :D :D :D
Thank you. Yes I was very upset.
-
Well obviously police cars would not have been dispatched before they were made aware of an incident. :D
He's claimed two different versions of whether he called Julie before or after the police.
He called Julie first, but couldn't talk for long because he had to call the police?
He called Julie second because he was p***** off at the police?
Going from her flat mates testimony and that I don't recall seeing Julie mention that JB had said he'd called the police when he spoke to her, it would appear to me that he spoke to Julie first and the police second.
Ha, ha!! The premise being that Neville called before Jeremy and so cars were dispatched in line with HIS call :P.
I agree that he spoke to Julie first, then the police. In his first statement he doesn't mention calling Julie at all.
Also if we're pretty sure that the call to Bonnet (from West) was at 03:26 and the 03:36 written by West on Jeremy's log was a mistake the whole call from Neville and cars being dispatched as a result of this call, falls flat on it proverbial? It's pretty obvious that there was only one call and the cars dispatched were as a result of this call - the call from Jeremy, which would have occurred around about 03:20 (obviously that's approx). If he spent 10 mins looking for the station number nd also made a call to Julie, the timings just don't add up.
-
Ha, ha!! The premise being that Neville called before Jeremy and so cars were dispatched in line with HIS call :P.
I agree that he spoke to Julie first, then the police. In his first statement he doesn't mention calling Julie at all.
Also if we're pretty sure that the call to Bonnet (from West) was at 03:26 and the 03:36 written by West on Jeremy's log was a mistake the whole call from Neville and cars being dispatched as a result of this call, falls flat on it proverbial? It's pretty obvious that there was only one call and the cars dispatched were as a result of this call - the call from Jeremy, which would have occurred around about 03:20 (obviously that's approx). If he spent 10 mins looking for the station number nd also made a call to Julie, the timings just don't add up.
Yeah, the suggestion that there was a call from Nevill to the police is absurd.
-
could someone remind when did jeremy say nevile phoned him.
-
could someone remind what did jeremy say nevile phoned him.
Your question doesn't make sense? ???
-
think nugnug means what time did Jeremy say his Father phoned him. Come in Adam with the correct answer ;D
-
think nugnug means what time did Jeremy say his Father phoned him. Come in Adam with the correct answer ;D
Oh okay.
Well in his statement dated 7th August 1985 Jeremy claims his father called at 3:10am.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1091.0;attach=18247;image)
-
I created a thread on Neville's last ten words. I will locate it.
-
I created a thread on Neville's call to the police.
I thought it was an important enough topic to warrant a thread. But it was taken down.
I will see if I can locate the post.
-
It is doubtful Neville would phone both the police and Jeremy.
If things were so serious as to phone the police, there was no point also putting his only son in danger.
By the same token, if Neville thought Jeremy could resolve the situation, there was no point involving the police.
There is also the question of whether Neville would have time to make two phone calls.
On the massacre night Jeremy made a big effort to tell the police Neville liked to keep things private and not involve the police. Although Jeremy did not say, why if that was the case he had rang the police himself.
On the massacre night and the days before Jeremy was charged, the police never said to Jeremy or anyone else that they had heard from Neville.
Upon being charged and at trial, Jeremy stuck to his claim that Neville would phone him if his life was in danger, rather than the police. The police agreed to an extent and never said they had heard from Neville.
Decades later after seeing 3.36am rather than 3.26am on a document, Jeremy changed his mind and said Neville did ring the police. This would mean that dozens of police officers have withheld the truth for 29 years. Even before Jeremy was a suspect. They would have lied in their Witness Statements and perjured themselves in court. With none of them retracting a word.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5229.0.html
This is for Susan. She must have missed it the first time.
-
Adam you are spoiling me 8)
-
I will be spoiling you and you're friend Caroline when I cook you both dinner soon.
We can read Wilkes's book together afterwards. Lots of room on my sofa for three.
-
Harters thanks for that what is getting to me he says he went outside to shoot rabbits then he added he was in a hurry to take the trailer to the combine if that was the case why waste time with a rifle and the pretext of shooting rabbis does not ring true at all to me.
-
Adam that sounds so exciting but what about poor April :'(
-
He said he 'immediately' phoned the police. That is not true. He phoned them 16 minutes later.
He also says he phoned Julie at 3.25am. That is not true as he phoned the police at 3.26am.
-
Adam that sounds so exciting but what about poor April :'(
Will she be upset ?
-
Jeremy said he 'removed the magazine and the round up the breach'.
Does this mean there were no bullets in the rifle ?
-
Harters thanks for that what is getting to me he says he went outside to shoot rabbits then he added he was in a hurry to take the trailer to the combine if that was the case why waste time with a rifle and the pretext of shooting rabbis does not ring true at all to me.
That's a fair point.
It seems rather far fetched to me. To add to the apparent rush that he was in, there would be little point is using the rifle without the sound moderator attached as they would scatter after the first shot; the scope was not attached so he wouldn't have been particularly accurate; it was relatively late at night and the gunshots would have been a nuisance to the residents of WHF (twins were in bed) and the nearby cottages; there are not any arable fields that close to where the rabbits were supposedly spotted so what was the urgency.
-
Jeremy said he 'removed the magazine and the round up the breach'.
Does this mean there were no bullets in the rifle ?
What do you think? ::)
-
I will be spoiling you and you're friend Caroline when I cook you both dinner soon.
We can read Wilkes's book together afterwards. Lots of room on my sofa for three.
Darn, think I'm washing my hair that night!
-
Harters thanks for that what is getting to me he says he went outside to shoot rabbits then he added he was in a hurry to take the trailer to the combine if that was the case why waste time with a rifle and the pretext of shooting rabbis does not ring true at all to me.
When he eventually did take the trailer to the combine, he didn't wait and then bring it back, although he said he 'did some jobs'? Why didn't he wait for the trailer.? Would he really have left it, walked back and let his dad go back for it after 10pm?
-
When he eventually did take the trailer to the combine, he didn't wait and then bring it back, although he said he 'did some jobs'? Why didn't he wait for the trailer.? Would he really have left it, walked back and let his dad go back for it after 10pm?
I remember you asking before about the farm boundaries, you may have got them out of one of the books (Wilkes?), did it also refer to where the last trailer was located?
-
I remember you asking before about the farm boundaries, you may have got them out of one of the books (Wilkes?), did it also refer to where the last trailer was located?
I've posted a pic of the farm boundaries in the archives. But I guess you know why I was asking now. No, I can't find anything that indicates where the trailer was left but Jeremy said it was collected. However, I wonder 'who' collected it?
-
I've posted a pic of the farm boundaries in the archives. But I guess you know why I was asking now. No, I can't find anything that indicates where the trailer was left but Jeremy said it was collected. However, I wonder 'who' collected it?
Which thread did you put it in, I'm not sure I've seen it? The photo's one by Abs? ???
-
I'm making a separate thread for this because it's quite an important aspect (given the number of times it's been discussed).
The timings must surely be wrong? Bonnet actually states that he received a call from CD 1990 (West) at 03:26. If the call is being relayed to him by West at 03:26, Jeremy MUST have called 'before' then with enough time to explain to West his story and for West to have contacted Bonnet.
I agree that Jeremy had to have called police before 3:26.
This is one of those issues where Jeremy supporters though insisted Jeremy would not have been talking long to West. I personally think it would have taken a couple of minutes or more to explain his story to West in full and to give West time to write it all down. But others who want to pretend Jeremy was not on the phone long say otherwise. They suggest that Jeremy could have conveyed the message in mere seconds and that West could likewise have conveyed it to Bonnett is seconds.
The motivation of those who say he was not on the phone long is twofold:
1) to pretend he was off the phone very early on and that there was a later call to police from Nevill as opposed to his call with West ending 3:36.
2) The later the call ended the less the chance of his claim tha the called Julie after speaking to police being possible.
While Jeremy's supporters say it is understandable for Jeremy not to be able to rememeber whether he phoned Julie before or after speaking to police that is ridiculous. Jeremy slipped up during his interrogation and admitted that he phoned her before. He soon reversed course insisting that was a mistake and maintained the call to Julie was after he phoned police. On the one hand that looks bad because instead of rushing to WHF to try to check on his family and meet police he supposedly was calling Julie. That doesn't exhibit the kind of concern someone would have if they actually received a call from Nevill like was claimed. Another problem is that such a call could not have been made until after he was completely finished speaking to the police. Surely his call to police did not end until after 3:30. 2 of Julie's roomates said the call came at 3AM and the third said 3:15 though under pressure said it could have been as late as 3:30. None of them leave room for the call coming after 3:30 which would have to be the case if he called after speaking to police.
Furthermore, if his claims were true then he would have called to complain about the police. Yet Julie did not recall him saying a thing about having phoned the police. This is a real problem because Jeremy's explanation of why he called Julie fell apart not just the timing of the call.
Jeremy was thus unable to give a credible reaosn for calling Julie. His pretext for calling fell apart leaving bare his true motivation. His true motivation for calling Julie was so that Julie could tell police that he called to say Nevill phoned and thus to bolster his account that he received a call from Nevill. There was no valid reaosn for calling her so it was just to bolster his claim he received a call from Nevill which is evidence that such a call was made up or he would not need to bolster his claim by phoning her.
Interestingly at trial Jeremy contradicted prior claims of immediately phoning police and testified that at first he did not think the situation was urgent and only after thinking for a while did he realize that the situation was urgent and that he should phone police. So he didn't think things were urgent then why would he call Julie to wake her up? It makes no sense so he stuck at trial with the claim he phoned Julie after phoning the police.
If Nevill actually had called Jeremy he would not have phoned Julie at all and thus the fact he called her period is highly suspicious.
What would be the natural thing to do if actually receiving a call from a loved one like Jeremy claimed?
To either go right over or phone police and then go over. After phoning police you might call other loved ones to inform them of the possible trouble or tell them to also meet you there because there is trouble but that depends on who else is nearby and their relationship that they would be so concerned about those in the house. Such as calling a spouse of someone in the house if a spouse had not been there. SInce you were not positive that anything bad happened and thus uncertain you would nto want to worry people for no reason. It would have to be inforing someone of possible trouble so they knew to be ready in case something bad happened so they woudl be ready to go at quick notice.
None of this is relevant to Julie. She didn't care about the family and waking her up just to tell her there could potentially be trouble makes no sense. He ended up calling her at 6AM to tell her not to go to work because she would be needed to tell police about how he called her hours earlier to bolster his story that Nevill phoned him. Thus the second call is as suspicious as the 3AM call. Jeremy supporters say that he knew they were dead at 6AM because there was no movement or response in the house (while at the same time maintaining he saw movement in various windows) so this is not proof he knew they were dead because he had killed them. I think it is a big deal to tell his girlfriend that she needs to not go to work because she will need to tell police about his call to her. that shows you how much be figured his call would matter and how his family's well being was not the main thing on his mind at 6AM but instead his mind was working on having her bolster the call from Nevill. That to me says volumes.
-
Which thread did you put it in, I'm not sure I've seen it? The photo's one by Abs? ???
Yes, hang on, will look for it.
-
Darn, think I'm washing my hair that night!
oh go on Caroline - you are one of the special few- Adam will only invite those to his sofa who agree with him and all of his many threads. :)
-
I agree that Jeremy had to have called police before 3:26.
This is one of those issues where Jeremy supporters though insisted Jeremy would not have been talking long to West. I personally think it would have taken a couple of minutes or more to explain his story to West in full and to give West time to write it all down. But others who want to pretend Jeremy was not on the phone long say otherwise. They suggest that Jeremy could have conveyed the message in mere seconds and that West could likewise have conveyed it to Bonnett is seconds.
The motivation of those who say he was not on the phone long is twofold:
1) to pretend he was off the phone very early on and that there was a later call to police from Nevill as opposed to his call with West ending 3:36.
2) The later the call ended the less the chance of his claim tha the called Julie after speaking to police being possible.
While Jeremy's supporters say it is understandable for Jeremy not to be able to rememeber whether he phoned Julie before or after speaking to police that is ridiculous. Jeremy slipped up during his interrogation and admitted that he phoned her before. He soon reversed course insisting that was a mistake and maintained the call to Julie was after he phoned police. On the one hand that looks bad because instead of rushing to WHF to try to check on his family and meet police he supposedly was calling Julie. That doesn't exhibit the kind of concern someone would have if they actually received a call from Nevill like was claimed. Another problem is that such a call could not have been made until after he was completely finished speaking to the police. Surely his call to police did not end until after 3:30. 2 of Julie's roomates said the call came at 3AM and the third said 3:15 though under pressure said it could have been as late as 3:30. None of them leave room for the call coming after 3:30 which would have to be the case if he called after speaking to police.
Furthermore, if his claims were true then he would have called to complain about the police. Yet Julie did not recall him saying a thing about having phoned the police. This is a real problem because Jeremy's explanation of why he called Julie fell apart not just the timing of the call.
Jeremy was thus unable to give a credible reaosn for calling Julie. His pretext for calling fell apart leaving bare his true motivation. His true motivation for calling Julie was so that Julie could tell police that he called to say Nevill phoned and thus to bolster his account that he received a call from Nevill. There was no valid reaosn for calling her so it was just to bolster his claim he received a call from Nevill which is evidence that such a call was made up or he would not need to bolster his claim by phoning her.
Interestingly at trial Jeremy contradicted prior claims of immediately phoning police and testified that at first he did not think the situation was urgent and only after thinking for a while did he realize that the situation was urgent and that he should phone police. So he didn't think things were urgent then why would he call Julie to wake her up? It makes no sense so he stuck at trial with the claim he phoned Julie after phoning the police.
If Nevill actually had called Jeremy he would not have phoned Julie at all and thus the fact he called her period is highly suspicious.
What would be the natural thing to do if actually receiving a call from a loved one like Jeremy claimed?
To either go right over or phone police and then go over. After phoning police you might call other loved ones to inform them of the possible trouble or tell them to also meet you there because there is trouble but that depends on who else is nearby and their relationship that they would be so concerned about those in the house. Such as calling a spouse of someone in the house if a spouse had not been there. SInce you were not positive that anything bad happened and thus uncertain you would nto want to worry people for no reason. It would have to be inforing someone of possible trouble so they knew to be ready in case something bad happened so they woudl be ready to go at quick notice.
None of this is relevant to Julie. She didn't care about the family and waking her up just to tell her there could potentially be trouble makes no sense. He ended up calling her at 6AM to tell her not to go to work because she would be needed to tell police about how he called her hours earlier to bolster his story that Nevill phoned him. Thus the second call is as suspicious as the 3AM call. Jeremy supporters say that he knew they were dead at 6AM because there was no movement or response in the house (while at the same time maintaining he saw movement in various windows) so this is not proof he knew they were dead because he had killed them. I think it is a big deal to tell his girlfriend that she needs to not go to work because she will need to tell police about his call to her. that shows you how much be figured his call would matter and how his family's well being was not the main thing on his mind at 6AM but instead his mind was working on having her bolster the call from Nevill. That to me says volumes.
It wouldn't matter how long Jeremy was on the phone because Bonnet recorded a time of 03:26, West obviously called Bonnet 'after' Jeremy had called and so Jeremy HAD to call at least four or five minutes before that. The time is clearly written on Bonnet's log, it also indicates that he took the call from CD1990, which was West's call number and NOT Neville Bamber. It is stretching the bounds of reality to suggest that Bonnet got the time wrong too and basically this kicks the idea that Neville called - straight out of the ball park (to coin an Americanism).
-
oh go on Caroline - you are one of the special few- Adam will only invite those to his sofa who agree with him and all of his many threads. :)
That's why I'm washing my hair
-
Which thread did you put it in, I'm not sure I've seen it? The photo's one by Abs? ???
It is in the pictures but it's part of a long picture thread, easier to just place a copy here. I looked up WHF on Google earth and just copied the boundry line from Wilkes's book. The line is still quite clear so can't have changed since Wilkes wrote the book.
-
It wouldn't matter how long Jeremy was on the phone because Bonnet recorded a time of 03:26, West obviously called Bonnet 'after' Jeremy had called and so Jeremy HAD to call at least four or five minutes before that. The time is clearly written on Bonnet's log, it also indicates that he took the call from CD1990, which was West's call number and NOT Neville Bamber. It is stretching the bounds of reality to suggest that Bonnet got the time wrong too and basically this kicks the idea that Neville called - straight out of the ball park (to coin an Americanism).
Hi Caroline, personally have never been convinced by the claim that Nevill called the police, just too ambiguous imo.
-
It is in the pictures but it's part of a long picture thread, easier to just place a copy here. I looked up WHF on Google earth and just copied the boundry line from Wilkes's book. The line is still quite clear so can't have changed since Wilkes wrote the book.
Okay thanks. It's not that big an area really is it. :-\
So the trailer wasn't far away.
-
Hi Caroline, personally have never been convinced by the claim that Nevill called the police, just too ambiguous imo.
Hi Maggie, the timings just don't match and that claim that a car was already on the way to the scene 'before' Jeremy' called is also false because we know Jeremy MUST have called a lot earlier than 03:36am. I think West must have been a bit illiterate and maybe that's why more than one copy of his log exists, he just kept spelling things wrong and didn't even manage to get the time right. I think West is the one who was reprimanded because his testimony was a bit of a shambles.
-
Okay thanks. It's not that big an area really is it. :-\
So the trailer wasn't far away.
Far enough.
-
It wouldn't matter how long Jeremy was on the phone because Bonnet recorded a time of 03:26, West obviously called Bonnet 'after' Jeremy had called and so Jeremy HAD to call at least four or five minutes before that. The time is clearly written on Bonnet's log, it also indicates that he took the call from CD1990, which was West's call number and NOT Neville Bamber. It is stretching the bounds of reality to suggest that Bonnet got the time wrong too and basically this kicks the idea that Neville called - straight out of the ball park (to coin an Americanism).
Brilliant my dear Watson?
-
Hi Maggie, the timings just don't match and that claim that a car was already on the way to the scene 'before' Jeremy' called is also false because we know Jeremy MUST have called a lot earlier than 03:36am. I think West must have been a bit illiterate and maybe that's why more than one copy of his log exists, he just kept spelling things wrong and didn't even manage to get the time right. I think West is the one who was reprimanded because his testimony was a bit of a shambles.
You could be right, so much of the police stuff seems to be such a jumble, I do think myself that claiming it proved Nevill called the police is clutching at straws.
-
Brilliant my dear Watson?
Why thank you Justice! ;)
-
Hello Justice how ya doing well I hope. Caroline puts up some brilliant posts she is the main reason I changed my stance and harters of course :-*.
-
It wouldn't matter how long Jeremy was on the phone because Bonnet recorded a time of 03:26, West obviously called Bonnet 'after' Jeremy had called and so Jeremy HAD to call at least four or five minutes before that. The time is clearly written on Bonnet's log, it also indicates that he took the call from CD1990, which was West's call number and NOT Neville Bamber. It is stretching the bounds of reality to suggest that Bonnet got the time wrong too and basically this kicks the idea that Neville called - straight out of the ball park (to coin an Americanism).
There are some Jeremy supporters who deny that it would have taken 4-5 minutes for Jeremy to convey the message and maintain it could have taken less than a minute. I personally think it would have taken at least 2 minutes to convey all the things he did. I can't see Jeremy stating it all and West being abel to write it down in under 2 minutes.
Jeremy supporters also play fast and loose with their claims about Nevill's call. Some suggest that Jeremy did not call until 3:36 and that Bonnett's 3:26 call was from Nevill. They claim that Bonnett was told to lie and conceal this call was made so he altered his report to indicate the call was from West and attribute the remarks to Jeremy but in fact it was Nevill.
Sometimes they claim Nevill called West. The only constant is that they have no actual proof and keep making allegations of a call despite having no foundation at all. That makes it all the more laughable when a handfull of supporters claim it is a proven fact that Nevill phoned police.
-
There are some Jeremy supporters who deny that it would have taken 4-5 minutes for Jeremy to convey the message and maintain it could have taken less than a minute. I personally think it would have taken at least 2 minutes to convey all the things he did. I can't see Jeremy stating it all and West being abel to write it down in under 2 minutes.
Jeremy supporters also play fast and loose with their claims about Nevill's call. Some suggest that Jeremy did not call until 3:36 and that Bonnett's 3:26 call was from Nevill. They claim that Bonnett was told to lie and conceal this call was made so he altered his report to indicate the call was from West and attribute the remarks to Jeremy but in fact it was Nevill.
Sometimes they claim Nevill called West. The only constant is that they have no actual proof and keep making allegations of a call despite having no foundation at all. That makes it all the more laughable when a handfull of supporters claim it is a proven fact that Nevill phoned police.
Bonnet was a civilian and not bound by the same red tape as West 'might' have been. Nope for me this seals the deal, Bonnet's timings prove to me that Jeremy called much earlier than 03:36 and even argued as much until the other log was discovered in 2004. The two logs obviously refer to the same call so no call from Neville and no car sent to the scene before Jeremy called they were sent in response to his call and not an earlier call from Neville. That one time written on Bonnet's log, can't really be disputed because there would be no reason to have hidden a call from Neville in the beginning when Jeremy wasn't even a suspect and Taff would have mentioned it to the relatives IF it had occurred.
-
Bonnet was a civilian and not bound by the same red tape as West 'might' have been. Nope for me this seals the deal, Bonnet's timings prove to me that Jeremy called much earlier than 03:36 and even argued as much until the other log was discovered in 2004. The two logs obviously refer to the same call so no call from Neville and no car sent to the scene before Jeremy called they were sent in response to his call and not an earlier call from Neville. That one time written on Bonnet's log, can't really be disputed because there would be no reason to have hidden a call from Neville in the beginning when Jeremy wasn't even a suspect and Taff would have mentioned it to the relatives IF it had occurred.
The allegations are that Nevill either called West or Bonnett and the logs were altered after Jeremy became a suspect. Naturally they have no evidence to prove such though just bare bones allegations they were altered to conceal a call from Nevill.
The burden of proof is on them to establish West and Bonnett lied and altered logs to conceal a call but they can't.
That alone is enough reason to ignore the claims because there is no evidence to rebut.
If the claims were true there of course would be evidence and that evidence would be that there would be people who were aware of the call. Had Nevill called before Jeremy then the police would have told Jeremy they already knew and were on the case. Furthermore they would have told the family especially DCI Jones when he was trying to convince the family that Sheila did it. It would have been mentioned in various reports and police notebooks there would be no way to simply alter the logs and that alone to make the evidence of such a call vanish.
This is why many Jeremy supporters have given up on the notion of a call from Nevill and do not make these allegations. Only the most desperate of supporters seems to do so .
-
The allegations are that Nevill either called West or Bonnett and the logs were altered after Jeremy became a suspect. Naturally they have no evidence to prove such though just bare bones allegations they were altered to conceal a call from Nevill.
The burden of proof is on them to establish West and Bonnett lied and altered logs to conceal a call but they can't.
That alone is enough reason to ignore the claims because there is no evidence to rebut.
If the claims were true there of course would be evidence and that evidence would be that there would be people who were aware of the call. Had Nevill called before Jeremy then the police would have told Jeremy they already knew and were on the case. Furthermore they would have told the family especially DCI Jones when he was trying to convince the family that Sheila did it. It would have been mentioned in various reports and police notebooks there would be no way to simply alter the logs and that alone to make the evidence of such a call vanish.
This is why many Jeremy supporters have given up on the notion of a call from Nevill and do not make these allegations. Only the most desperate of supporters seems to do so .
There is still no reason for Neville's call not to have been mentioned. In fact had one occurred, it would have been mentioned to Jeremy the following day There was no reason to keep it quiet but Bonnet's timings seal the deal.
-
There is still no reason for Neville's call not to have been mentioned. In fact had one occurred, it would have been mentioned to Jeremy the following day There was no reason to keep it quiet but Bonnet's timings seal the deal.
The fact no call was mentioned to Jeremy at the time of his call or to the family when they suggested Jeremy did it is the real coup de grace. There would be no way that it would not have been mentioned or that DCI Jones to have allowed such a call to be erased from all memory and documentation. That alone makes the entire thing inconceivable.
-
The fact no call was mentioned to Jeremy at the time of his call or to the family when they suggested Jeremy did it is the real coup de grace. There would be no way that it would not have been mentioned or that DCI Jones to have allowed such a call to be erased from all memory and documentation. That alone makes the entire thing inconceivable.
Exactly - it didn't happen. Yesterday I said I couldn't be 100% certain that it didn't happen, today I can!
-
Hello Justice how ya doing well I hope. Caroline puts up some brilliant posts she is the main reason I changed my stance and harters of course :-*.
Hi Susan, quite right both sensible posters as well as Maggie, April, and Alias even though we sometimes don't agree they talk sense?
-
What do you think? ::)
Why don't you tell me.
I asked the question as I did not know the answer.
-
Jeremy said he 'removed the magazine and the round up the breach'.
Does this mean there were no bullets in the rifle ?
-
Jeremy said he 'removed the magazine and the round up the breach'.
Does this mean there were no bullets in the rifle ?
If that's what he did - then yes.
-
Okay thanks. It's not that big an area really is it. :-\
So the trailer wasn't far away.
Surprisingly small - I thought they had much more land!
-
You have to hand it to Jeremy and his team.
His claim that Neville phoned the police is utter rubbish. But it still made it onto the front cover of a British National newspaper.
Passing a lie detector test is totally worthless. But still got a lot of publicity at the time.
-
If that's what he did - then yes.
His WS says he did it.
So that would mean Sheila would have load before firing her first 11 bullets. Neville must have been watching television.
-
Hi Susan, quite right both sensible posters as well as Maggie, April, and Alias even though we sometimes don't agree they talk sense?
Thank you justice, I appreciate that. :) :)
-
Surprisingly small - I thought they had much more land!
They did/do but the rest is near Tolleshunt Major, down the road a bit. I just didn't realise the area around WHF was so small (relatively).
-
Exactly - it didn't happen. Yesterday I said I couldn't be 100% certain that it didn't happen, today I can!
Couldn't? ???
-
Couldn't? ???
Yeah, I have keyboard problems!! ;D Typed something this morning and COULDN'T even read it back. Bloody laptop!!
-
They did/do but the rest is near Tolleshunt Major, down the road a bit. I just didn't realise the area around WHF was so small (relatively).
Closer or further away from Goldhanger?
-
Closer or further away from Goldhanger?
Nah a bit further away, toward Gt Totham.
-
Yeah, I have keyboard problems!! ;D Typed something this morning and COULDN'T even read it back. Bloody laptop!!
;D
-
His WS says he did it.
So that would mean Sheila would have load before firing her first 11 bullets. Neville must have been watching television.
There was only 10 bullets in the first load. The murderer simply inserted the full magazine to load the rifle.
-
According to scipio_usmc, it would have taken a couple of minutes or more [for Jeremy] to explain his story to Pc West in full and to give West time to write it all down. According to Caroline, Bonnett recorded a time of 03:26, West obviously called Bonnet 'after' Jeremy had called and so Jeremy HAD to call at least four or five minutes before that.
Why these somewhat different guesses as to how long it took for Jeremy to give West the details he logged? Pc West was asked about this and said twice that it took less than a minute. Moreover, if one creates a plausible re-enactment of the call, it is consistent with what Pc West claimed. Even if Pc West incorrectly estimated the time, giving only half of the actual value, that would still mean that the correct value was under two minutes. Pc West was confident he spoke to Bonnett for less than three minutes. This is consistent with police statements that say they were told to go to WHF at about 03:30, though there isn't any explanation offered as to why they finally departed at 03:35, five minutes after being told to go.
However, Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett contradict each other regarding who despatched car CA07. Pc West stated he called Bonnett not to ask him to send a car, but to find out which police station covered WHF. Pc West also states he spoke to Witham by radio after being told by Bonnett that WHF was covered by Witham police station. This indicates that Pc West caused car CA07 to be sent to WHF. However, Malcolm Bonnett said in his statement "On completion of the conversation with Pc 1990 I called a Mobile Police car identified by the Call sign Charlie Alpha 7 and sent that vehicle directly to the scene of the alleged incident at White House Farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy." What's interesting is that this account is not supported by what the officers who were despatched put in their statements. They said they had just returned to base and were no longer in car CA07 when told to go to WHF. Moreover, it took them about five minutes to return to their vehicle and use their radio to say they had departed. Also, Bonnett seems to have no recollection of being asked by Pc West which police station covered WHF. Clearly, Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett cannot both have been giving the truth.
-
Jeremy didn't lie about the time he made the call to Julie, it was the police who had moved the time of his call from 3,36am, to 3.26am - for example, if Jeremys call to Julie took place at around 3.30am, this would have been around 6 minutes before the call to police timed at 3.36am, or about 4 minutes after the other timed call to police at 3.26am...
Jeremy was only trying to answer questions being put to him by police during interview, the police were clearly trying to confuse Jeremy at the time...
Considering that Jeremys call to Bonnet only lasted 30 seconds or so, before Bonnet contacted West, it beggars belief that the version of PC Wests account (3.26am), differs from Bonnets account (3.36am), involving the contradictions in the content of both, relating to the terms, "sister", and "daughter", etc...
-
I do not believe that Bonnet called PC West and relayed the details of Jeremys call to him at 3.26am, it makes more sense for PC West to have called Bonnett after Ralphs call to West timed at 3.26am, and then for Bonnet to relay the contents of Jeremys call to PC West at 3.36am - this explanation clears up the inconsistencies recorded in both phone logs, involving the terms, "daughter" (3.26am), and "sister" (3.36am). It also helps to clarify the circumstances in which the occupants of CA07 were dispatched to the incident 3.35am) before Jeremy called the police himself at 3.36am...
-
Did Malcolm Bonnett give evidence in person at Jeremy's trial?
-
Jeremy didn't lie about the time he made the call to Julie, it was the police who had moved the time of his call from 3,36am, to 3.26am - for example, if Jeremys call to Julie took place at around 3.30am, this would have been around 6 minutes before the call to police timed at 3.36am, or about 4 minutes after the other timed call to police at 3.26am...
Jeremy was only trying to answer questions being put to him by police during interview, the police were clearly trying to confuse Jeremy at the time...
Considering that Jeremys call to Bonnet only lasted 30 seconds or so, before Bonnet contacted West, it beggars belief that the version of PC Wests account (3.26am), differs from Bonnets account (3.36am), involving the contradictions in the content of both, relating to the terms, "sister", and "daughter", etc...
Thank you for posting that Mike its very important to clarify
-
If Jeremy phoned the police at 3.36am, that is 26 minutes after be said he received Neville's call.
Jeremy in his WS said he 'immediately rang the police'
If he was on the phone for several minutes from 3.36am. Then phoned Julie afterwards (as he said he did), he would not have time to arrive at WHF at 3.48am, driving so slowly.
-
We have been told that Jeremy's call -to the police- lasted "only 30 seconds or so." VERY little time to give more than a bare outline, added to which an innocent Jeremy would, in panic, probably have garbled his words and a guilty Jeremy would have needed to feign panic.
If we look at what MAY have been that conversation within that time frame we could find that it ran thus: "My name is Jeremy Bamber. I live at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger. I've just received a call from my father saying my sister has gone crazy and has got hold of one of his guns" The next part of the conversation would surely have been: "Can you give me your father's name and address, Sir" followed by "It's Mr Neville Bamber. White House Farm, Pages lane, Tolleshunt D' Arcy. Please hurry" There seems to have followed some business regarding how Jeremy would get there. Is it possible that call was passed on as "Call from Mr Neville Bamber of...........................Daughter has gone berserk with one of his guns"?
-
Hi Susan, quite right both sensible posters as well as Maggie, April, and Alias even though we sometimes don't agree they talk sense?
Justice, how kind. Thank-you :) :-*
-
This is what probably took place regaarding the two timed telephone logs (3.26 and 3.36am) - (1) Ralph makes call to police and speaks to PC West at 3.26am, West records what Ralph tells him regarding the deteriorating circumstances at the farmhouse. West records what Ralph tells him in the main part of the record sheet. Perhaps, it may have taken several mimutes for Ralph to get over to West the full picture of the unfolding drama, or that West himself took his time recording what Ralph was telling him. In the meantime, Jeremy made his call to police which was answered by Bonnett (3.36am)...
Now, either at the conclusion of West recording information imparted to him by Ralph in the timed 3.26am phone log, or because Ralph was no longer able to communicate, that at about 3.36am, West contacted Bonnet, or vice versa, and that from 3.36am onwards, Bonnet recorded what Jeremy was telling him in the 3.36am phone log, whilst West merely added a brief reference to the fact that "the son had also contacted police and passed a message".
This seems to be the best possible explanation yet, since, recorded in PC Wests, 3.26am phone log are fundamental contradictipns, making mention of the terms, "daughter", and "Son", the clearest indicator yet, that West could not possibly have recorded in its entireity, what Jeremy had been speaking to Bonnet about, because Sheila was not Jeremys daughter, nor was for that matter, Jeremy, Sheila's son...
-
We have been told that Jeremy's call -to the police- lasted "only 30 seconds or so." VERY little time to give more than a bare outline, added to which an innocent Jeremy would, in panic, probably have garbled his words and a guilty Jeremy would have needed to feign panic.
If we look at what MAY have been that conversation within that time frame we could find that it ran thus: "My name is Jeremy Bamber. I live at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger. I've just received a call from my father saying my sister has gone crazy and has got hold of one of his guns" The next part of the conversation would surely have been: "Can you give me your father's name and address, Sir" followed by "It's Mr Neville Bamber. White House Farm, Pages lane, Tolleshunt D' Arcy. Please hurry" There seems to have followed some business regarding how Jeremy would get there. Is it possible that call was passed on as "Call from Mr Neville Bamber of...........................Daughter has gone berserk with one of his guns"?
No it would not have taken 30 seconds.
It would have taken several minutes. West kept Jeremy holding on the line while he went to phone Witham police station.
Jeremy complained about being kept waiting when West returned to speak to him.
-
No it would not have taken 30 seconds.
It would have taken several minutes. West kept Jeremy holding on the line while he phoned Witham police station.
Jeremy complained about being kept waiting when West returned to speak to him.
I'm not referring to the length of time he was kept on hold. I'm talking about conversation time which of itself would seem longer than 30 seconds or so.
-
I'm not referring to the length of time he was kept on hold. I'm talking about conversation time which of itself would seem longer than 30 seconds or so.
That would also be more than 30 seconds.
West having to write down lots of details. Name, address, situation, who was at WHF, etc.
-
I'm not referring to the length of time he was kept on hold. I'm talking about conversation time which of itself would seem longer than 30 seconds or so.
That would also be more than 30 seconds.
West having to write down lots of details. Name, address, situation, who was at WHF, etc.
Why are you repeating what I've just said.
-
Why are you repeating what I've just said.
I am not. I am saying it would take more than 30 seconds for Jeremy to tell West the situation and details. And for West to write it down.
-
We have been told that Jeremy's call -to the police- lasted "only 30 seconds or so." VERY little time to give more than a bare outline, added to which an innocent Jeremy would, in panic, probably have garbled his words and a guilty Jeremy would have needed to feign panic.
If we look at what MAY have been that conversation within that time frame we could find that it ran thus: "My name is Jeremy Bamber. I live at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger. I've just received a call from my father saying my sister has gone crazy and has got hold of one of his guns" The next part of the conversation would surely have been: "Can you give me your father's name and address, Sir" followed by "It's Mr Neville Bamber. White House Farm, Pages lane, Tolleshunt D' Arcy. Please hurry" There seems to have followed some business regarding how Jeremy would get there. Is it possible that call was passed on as "Call from Mr Neville Bamber of...........................Daughter has gone berserk with one of his guns"?
I am not. I am saying it would take more than 30 seconds for Jeremy to tell West the situation and details. And for West to write it down.
Which is EXACTLY what I was drawing attention to in the first place.
-
'We have been told Jeremy's call to West lasted only 30 seconds'.
Source please.
-
'We have been told Jeremy's call to West lasted only 30 seconds'.
Source please.
Mike said it earlier -hence my response. Go ask him.
-
According to scipio_usmc, it would have taken a couple of minutes or more [for Jeremy] to explain his story to Pc West in full and to give West time to write it all down. According to Caroline, Bonnett recorded a time of 03:26, West obviously called Bonnet 'after' Jeremy had called and so Jeremy HAD to call at least four or five minutes before that.
Why these somewhat different guesses as to how long it took for Jeremy to give West the details he logged? Pc West was asked about this and said twice that it took less than a minute. Moreover, if one creates a plausible re-enactment of the call, it is consistent with what Pc West claimed. Even if Pc West incorrectly estimated the time, giving only half of the actual value, that would still mean that the correct value was under two minutes. Pc West was confident he spoke to Bonnett for less than three minutes. This is consistent with police statements that say they were told to go to WHF at about 03:30, though there isn't any explanation offered as to why they finally departed at 03:35, five minutes after being told to go.
However, Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett contradict each other regarding who despatched car CA07. Pc West stated he called Bonnett not to ask him to send a car, but to find out which police station covered WHF. Pc West also states he spoke to Witham by radio after being told by Bonnett that WHF was covered by Witham police station. This indicates that Pc West caused car CA07 to be sent to WHF. However, Malcolm Bonnett said in his statement "On completion of the conversation with Pc 1990 I called a Mobile Police car identified by the Call sign Charlie Alpha 7 and sent that vehicle directly to the scene of the alleged incident at White House Farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy." What's interesting is that this account is not supported by what the officers who were despatched put in their statements. They said they had just returned to base and were no longer in car CA07 when told to go to WHF. Moreover, it took them about five minutes to return to their vehicle and use their radio to say they had departed. Also, Bonnett seems to have no recollection of being asked by Pc West which police station covered WHF. Clearly, Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett cannot both have been giving the truth.
I think you have somewhat missed the point and seem to be trying to distract from it. The POINT is that there could be no call from Neville.
-
I do not believe that Bonnet called PC West and relayed the details of Jeremys call to him at 3.26am, it makes more sense for PC West to have called Bonnett after Ralphs call to West timed at 3.26am, and then for Bonnet to relay the contents of Jeremys call to PC West at 3.36am - this explanation clears up the inconsistencies recorded in both phone logs, involving the terms, "daughter" (3.26am), and "sister" (3.36am). It also helps to clarify the circumstances in which the occupants of CA07 were dispatched to the incident 3.35am) before Jeremy called the police himself at 3.36am...
Why did police keep Neville's call secret? Taff Jones wanted the relatives off his back, he had no reason to keep the call secret and every reason to make it public. The call would also have been confirmed to Jeremy the following day.
-
Jeremy was put on hold rather abruptly when he first contacted the police...
I believe, in total his call lasted around 10 minutes, but for much of that time, Jeremy was on hold, whilst Bonnet spoke to PC West...
Jeremy was held for such a long time because PC Eest was relaying to Bonnet the fact that he had received the call from the scene by Ralph Bamber. At this time, Bonnet told West that he had also received a call from the son about the same matter...
Once Bonnet had explained to PC West about Jeremys call, he spoke to Jeremy again and told him to make his way to the farm where he would be met by police who had already been dispatched to the incident...
We therefore now know that the occupants of CA07 were dispatched to attend the scene before the call from Jeremy to Bonnet terminated. Bonnet must have been told this information by PC West - therefore, West instructed the occupants of CA07 to attend the incident at the scene, not Bonnet. If West received the call at 3.26am from Ralph, he obviously contacted the occupants of CA07, before Jeremy had made his call to police at 3.36am, received by Bonnett...
-
Jeremy was put on hold rather abruptly when he first contacted the police...
I believe, in total his call lasted around 10 minutes, but for much of that time, Jeremy was on hold, whilst Bonnet spoke to PC West...
Jeremy was held for such a long time because PC Eest was relaying to Bonnet the fact that he had received the call from the scene by Ralph Bamber. At this time, Bonnet told West that he had also received a call from the son about the same matter...
Once Bonnet had explained to PC West about Jeremys call, he spoke to Jeremy again and told him to make his way to the farm where he would be met by police who had already been dispatched to the incident...
We therefore now know that the occupants of CA07 were dispatched to attend the scene before the call from Jeremy to Bonnet terminated. Bonnet must have been told this information by PC West - therefore, West instructed the occupants of CA07 to attend the incident at the scene, not Bonnet. If West received the call at 3.26am from Ralph, he obviously contacted the occupants of CA07, before Jeremy had made his call to police at 3.36am, received by Bonnett...
So why wouldnt he have mentioned Ralf's call to Jeremy? There was no reason to keep this call secret. He also passed the call to Bonnet at 03:26 so there was no call at 03:36. West clearly made a mistake. Plus, West had to talk to Jeremy long enough to give him all of the details and for West to write it down - which would have taken longer than any 30 seconds.
-
It is doubtful Neville would phone both the police and Jeremy.
If things were so serious as to phone the police, there was no point also putting his only son in danger.
By the same token, if Neville thought Jeremy could resolve the situation, there was no point involving the police.
There is also the question of whether Neville would have time to make two phone calls.
On the massacre night Jeremy made a big effort to tell the police Neville liked to keep things private and not involve the police. Although Jeremy did not say, why if that was the case he had rang the police himself.
On the massacre night and the days before Jeremy was charged, the police never said to Jeremy or anyone else that they had heard from Neville.
Upon being charged and at trial, Jeremy stuck to his claim that Neville would phone him if his life was in danger, rather than the police. The police agreed to an extent and never said they had heard from Neville.
Decades later after seeing 3.36am rather than 3.26am on a document, Jeremy changed his mind and said Neville did ring the police. This would mean that dozens of police officers have withheld the truth for 29 years. Even before Jeremy was a suspect. They would have lied in their Witness Statements and perjured themselves in court. With none of them retracting a word.
-
Jeremy was put on hold rather abruptly when he first contacted the police...
I believe, in total his call lasted around 10 minutes, but for much of that time, Jeremy was on hold, whilst Bonnet spoke to PC West...
Jeremy was held for such a long time because PC Eest was relaying to Bonnet the fact that he had received the call from the scene by Ralph Bamber. At this time, Bonnet told West that he had also received a call from the son about the same matter...
Once Bonnet had explained to PC West about Jeremys call, he spoke to Jeremy again and told him to make his way to the farm where he would be met by police who had already been dispatched to the incident...
We therefore now know that the occupants of CA07 were dispatched to attend the scene before the call from Jeremy to Bonnet terminated. Bonnet must have been told this information by PC West - therefore, West instructed the occupants of CA07 to attend the incident at the scene, not Bonnet. If West received the call at 3.26am from Ralph, he obviously contacted the occupants of CA07, before Jeremy had made his call to police at 3.36am, received by Bonnett...
If Jeremy phoned West at 3.36am and the call lasted 10 minutes in total. Then he rang Julie, as Jeremy said he did, how did everyone arrive at WHF by 3.48am ?
-
Timings are all out of sync', which helps no-one and serves no useful purpose only to cloud the issue and muddy the waters...
However, once you realise that different clocks are being used to gauge timings, a clearer picture begins to emerge...
To help everyone to understand, I propose to introduce the following useful terms to try and simplify the matter:-
(1) - Individual time reference (ITR)
(2) - Group time reference (GTR)
(3) - Real time reference (RTF)
The question I would pose regarding the time of arrival at the scene of the occupants of CA07 (3.48hrs), and the arrival of Jeremy at the scene (3.52hrs), is which time reference, or clock was being relied upon when those timings were produced?
-
Timings are all out of sync', which helps no-one and serves no useful purpose only to cloud the issue and muddy the waters...
However, once you realize that different clicks are being used to gauge timings, a clearer picture begins to emerge...
To help everyone to understand, I propose to introduce the following useful terms to try and simplify the matter:-
(1) - Individual time reference (ITR)
(2) - Group time reference (GTR)
(3) - Real time reference (RTF)
Thw question I would pose regarding the time of arrival at the scene of the occupants of CA07 (3.48hrs), and the arrival of Jeremy at the scene (3.52hrs), is which time reference, or clock was being relied upon when those timings were produced?
Mike, why would Neville's call have been kept secret? It's the one thing that would have shut the relatives up and Taff wanted them to shut up. If a phone call from Neville had occurred Stan Jones would also have been aware of it and if not, Taff would have made damn sure he was. A call from Neville means no case to answer.
-
It was a srcret service operation. Special branch controlled what could be disclosed or withheld - almost everything llinked to this particular family protection program is withheld under pii...
-
Considering that Jeremy's call to Bonnett only lasted 30 seconds or so, before Bonnet contacted West, . . .
Some confusion there, as there wasn't a call from Jeremy to Bonnett, and Pc West called Bonnett, not the other way round, and his call to Bonnett lasted a few minutes, not 30 seconds. Pc West thought he spoke to Jeremy for less than a minute before calling Bonnett, but didn't suggest 30 seconds.
-
It was a srcret service operation. Special branch controlled what could be disclosed or withheld - almost everything llinked to this particular family protection program is withheld under pii...
Two guys sat in a control room wouldn't know who was calling and nothing was mentioned to Jeremy about another call being received from his father and that a car was already on the way. The two control room guys would know nothing about any special branch op. This also being the case, why were journalists given information immediately after the murders - it would have all been sealed off and investigated by men in dark suits. What possible interest would SB have in an aging farmer and his family? Sorry Mike but I can't buy that.
-
The protection program went dratically wrong, because the actual life threatening danger came from amongst those who Special branch were supposed to have been protecting. In effect by allowing three generations of the same family under the same roof, with guns a plenty and freely available...
-
Two guys sat in a control room wouldn't know who was calling and nothing was mentioned to Jeremy about another call being received from his father and that a car was already on the way. The two control room guys would know nothing about any special branch op. This also being the case, why were journalists given information immediately after the murders - it would have all been sealed off and investigated by men in dark suits. What possible interest would SB have in an aging farmer and his family? Sorry Mike but I can't buy that.
Caroline, I've always wondered about the SB thing. My friends bro in law was a M'Lud and had protection in whose ever residence he visited as well as his own home. Neville was a magistrate which is hardly the same thing. Another friend's husband had live in protection, but he and she were in a VERY prominent position. The Bambers were minor local gentry.
-
As discovered by research into this matter by GDS, during the war effort Ralph was in the RAF and was an inportant member of a group of spies who were based in the middle east. What GDS discovered was that Ralph was the only living / surviving member of the group up until the time of his death. All the other members of the spy rung and thier families had all died in mysterious circumstances in different countries. I remember being told about thid from a close friend of GDS at the time who I shall not name. The reason I got told about this was because of a police message passed from the scene for six body bags to be brought to the scene...
If Ralph was a spy who during his working lifehad worked as a key member of a secret service unit out in the middle east, why shouldn't he be afforded the protection of SB when he became an old man who was having his life threatened? Anyway, PS Woodcock worked as part of the Sb team charged with protecting the family - I don'think he was dressed in a dark suit on the night of the shootings...
-
Caroline, I've always wondered about the SB thing. My friends bro in law was a M'Lud and had protection in whose ever residence he visited as well as his own home. Neville was a magistrate which is hardly the same thing. Another friend's husband had live in protection, but he and she were in a VERY prominent position. The Bambers were minor local gentry.
They didn't have so much as a burglar alarm fitted until after the murders. Any kind of state protection would make sure they lived in a secure property (at the least). Someone who was an important Secret Service spy with delicate info would have had a new identity. They wouldn't leave him in the middle of nowhere like a sitting duck. I can't buy into any kind of SB scenario. Although as an argument, it's quite clever because it leads an opposing argument with nowhere to go, other than to say - I don't believe it.
-
They didn't have so much as a burglar alarm fitted until after the murders. Any kind of state protection would make sure they lived in a secure property (at the least). Someone who was an important Secret Service spy with delicate info would have had a new identity. They wouldn't leave him in the middle of nowhere like a sitting duck. I can't buy into any kind of SB scenario. Although as an argument, it's quite clever because it leads an opposing argument with nowhere to go, other than to say - I don't believe it.
I don't believe it. :)
-
Caroline I don't believe it ;D
-
As discovered by research into this matter by GDS, during the war effort Ralph was in the RAF and was an inportant member of a group of spies who were based in the middle east. What GDS discovered was that Ralph was the only living / surviving member of the group up until the time of his death. All the other members of the spy rung and thier families had all died in mysterious circumstances in different countries. I remember being told about thid from a close friend of GDS at the time who I shall not name. The reason I got told about this was because of a police message passed from the scene for six body bags to be brought to the scene...
If Ralph was a spy who during his working lifehad worked as a key member of a secret service unit out in the middle east, why shouldn't he be afforded the protection of SB when he became an old man who was having his life threatened? Anyway, PS Woodcock worked as part of the Sb team charged with protecting the family - I don'think he was dressed in a dark suit on the night of the shootings...
The timings don't make sense to me. If Neville was 64 when he died, he was born in 1921, meaning he was only 18 at the outbreak of war and making him rather young to have been a spy. He'd only have been 24 when the war ended and would have been VERY lucky to have combined being a pilot with being a spy and not getting killed. I do understand that he was injured, though, which must have restricted his time in the airforce.
-
They didn't have so much as a burglar alarm fitted until after the murders. Any kind of state protection would make sure they lived in a secure property (at the least). Someone who was an important Secret Service spy with delicate info would have had a new identity. They wouldn't leave him in the middle of nowhere like a sitting duck. I can't buy into any kind of SB scenario. Although as an argument, it's quite clever because it leads an opposing argument with nowhere to go, other than to say - I don't believe it.
Caroline, that's interesting because my friend and her husband had actually bought a house for their retirement, but before they could come out of hiding SB had to confirm that it was safe for them to be there which meant the surrounding area, too. There were 4!!! of them living with my friend and her husband. She said it was HELL!!!!!
-
So, the fac that PS Woodcock was a SB officer involved in the seige, raid, and management of the scene has no relevance at all then?
Also the FACT that destruction and disposal of key exhibits were authorised by an SB Inspector, counts for nothing...
Think again...
-
It's quite possible that SB chose to get involved. It''s highly unlikely that SB thought Nevill needed substantial protection, as WHF would have been made more secure if that were the case. However, they may well have wanted to check on telephone calls for other reasons, such as a drugs-related investigation. Note that "secret service" is incorrect terminology.
-
So, the fac that PS Woodcock was a SB officer involved in the seige, raid, and management of the scene has no relevance at all then?
Also the FACT that destruction and disposal of key exhibits were authorised by an SB Inspector, counts for nothing...
Think again...
Don't know about your first point but I don't see how just because SB had some later involvement that the case is linked to spy's and the underworld. But even if it were true, it still doesn't explain why the phone call from Neville Bamber was kept secret at the expense of sending an innocent man to prison for something he didn't do. What risk would there have been to national security to divulge the phone call from Neville stating his daughter had gone berserk and had a gun - thus saving his son from a lifetime of incarceration?
-
Don't know about your first point but I don't see how just because SB had some later involvement that the case is linked to spy's and the underworld. But even if it were true, it still doesn't explain why the phone call from Neville Bamber was kept secret at the expense of sending an innocent man to prison for something he didn't do. What risk would there have been to national security to divulge the phone call from Neville stating his daughter had gone berserk and had a gun - thus saving his son from a lifetime of incarceration?
I agree Caroline - if they wanted a cover up then they could have stuck to the murder suicide story and possibly got through the inquest stage and it all would have gone away.Dont forget that the police at one time told the family the "facts" what ever they were to make them realise how wrong they were about Jeremy.
The police have not done themselves any favours because of the number of meetings that were apparently held with the family that were not recorded anywhere.
They have totally made every aspect of this case look so suspicious .
-
I agree Caroline - if they wanted a cover up then they could have stuck to the murder suicide story and possibly got through the inquest stage and it all would have gone away.Dont forget that the police at one time told the family the "facts" what ever they were to make them realise how wrong they were about Jeremy.
The police have not done themselves any favours because of the number of meetings that were apparently held with the family that were not recorded anywhere.
They have totally made every aspect of this case look so suspicious .
Thanks Jansus and I agree that EP handled the case like a complete load of amateurs. They bungled just about everything that was possible to bungle. But alas, there is no mileage in the suggestion that Neville called the police because it just simply doesn't hold water.
-
Out of interest Caroline - do you know why the Dickinson report was commissioned? I am finding it interesting - but not sure why it happened? - after all they got their man in the end.
Have noticed some errors in it though.
-
You'll find some interesting answers to that on the Jeremy Bamber Official Website,headed " Dickinson Enquiry "
-
That according to a shortage of resources,Jones,Cook and Montgomery had failed to request that a pathologist and ballistics expert to attend the scene with the bodies in-situ.
-
Out of interest Caroline - do you know why the Dickinson report was commissioned? I am finding it interesting - but not sure why it happened? - after all they got their man in the end.
Have noticed some errors in it though.
There is an explanation here Jansus http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/dickinson-enquiry.
-
thanks caroline
So basically the judge ( who was not at all biased :)) probably thought that Jeremy nearly got away with it. OR on reflection he was not happy about certain evidence they presented .
How interesting would it be to have the whole trial transcript.
I have only skim read the report - but there are definitely some errors - plus it seems to say lots of mistakes - no retribution - lets move forward ( how many times do we hear that when the establishment muck up!) tiny slap on the wrist.
-
thanks caroline
So basically the judge ( who was not at all biased :)) probably thought that Jeremy nearly got away with it. OR on reflection he was not happy about certain evidence they presented .
How interesting would it be to have the whole trial transcript.
I have only skim read the report - but there are definitely some errors - plus it seems to say lots of mistakes - no retribution - lets move forward ( how many times do we hear that when the establishment muck up!) tiny slap on the wrist.
Must admit, I have only read bits of it but I'll have to make an effort and read it through. Yes, the establishment are never 'ultimately wrong' and hardly ever face consequences.
-
They bungled just about everything that was possible to bungle. But alas, there is no mileage in the suggestion that Neville called the police because it just simply doesn't hold water.
If Nevill didn't call the police, an explanation is needed for why Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett contradicted each other as to who sent car CA07, why Malcolm Bonnett didn't state in his log who had called Pc West, or log Pc West's request for the name of the police station that covered WHF, and why the terminology was changed ("sister" to "daughter", and so on). If any of these things was clearly against standard procedure for dealing with this kind of incident, an explanation is required.
-
If Nevill didn't call the police, an explanation is needed for why Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett contradicted each other as to who sent car CA07, why Malcolm Bonnett didn't state in his log who had called Pc West, or log Pc West's request for the name of the police station that covered WHF, and why the terminology was changed ("sister" to "daughter", and so on). If any of these things was clearly against standard procedure for dealing with this kind of incident, an explanation is required.
Quite clearly, he didn't call the police - by suggesting he did, you need to explain why his call was never mentioned - not even by Taff Jones who wanted the relatives off his back. Stan Jones would never have suspected Jeremy if he knew that Neville had also reported the incident.
-
Yes the EP did make mistakes.
The judge said because they were lead in a direction by Jeremy.
Bob Woffinden says the mistakes benefit Jeremy more. He is able to jump on any tiny detail and try to work it in his favour.
-
Logging , writing recalling the timings could well be incorrect this is nothing scarce or very rare it still happens today why would anyone think it was not possible .
-
Quite clearly, he didn't call the police . . .
Why, then, did Malcolm Bonnett make a statement that clearly states that he despatched car CA07, contradicting Pc West's statement that he had done that? That's not just a minor mistake that often occurs.
-
Because these emergency calls are recorded,wouldn't someone have recognised both calls in the same voice when played back ?
-
Because these emergency calls are recorded,wouldn't someone have recognised both calls in the same voice when played back ?
Caroline has already explained this to you.
-
Because these emergency calls are recorded,wouldn't someone have recognised both calls in the same voice when played back ?
What 'both' calls?
-
Oh dear,I don't know anything,do I ? Considering it was one of the first questions I'd asked over 2 years ago,which obviously fell on deaf ears,or in this case,blind eyes.
-
Why, then, did Malcolm Bonnett make a statement that clearly states that he despatched car CA07, contradicting Pc West's statement that he had done that? That's not just a minor mistake that often occurs.
I don't see what difference that makes but where does West state that he sent car CA07?
-
Oh dear,I don't know anything,do I ? Considering it was one of the first questions I'd asked over 2 years ago,which obviously fell on deaf ears,or in this case,blind eyes.
That's the point Lookout, there weren't 2 calls and Jeremy didn't make an emergency call - he didn't call 999.
-
I do know one thing,and that's when a call comes through to the station,if it's not an emergency call,the phone isn't answered as quickly , because there are special lines for emergency calls. So Jeremy could have been left waiting while someone eventually answered it.
Has anyone tried ringing the non-emergency number ?
-
Why, then, did Malcolm Bonnett make a statement that clearly states that he despatched car CA07, contradicting Pc West's statement that he had done that? That's not just a minor mistake that often occurs.
I don't think there is a contradiction.
West contacted Bonnett to find the nearest unit and what station covered the area, Bonnett dispatched CA07. West then contacted Witham station himself to inform them of the incident and pass on any details.
Look at the first page of Bonnett's log, it says CONTROL under the CA07 despatch. Perhaps that indicates the unit was despatched by the control room at HQ, I.e. Bonnett?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=3199;image)
-
It was a srcret service operation. Special branch controlled what could be disclosed or withheld - almost everything llinked to this particular family protection program is withheld under pii...
What a load of nonsense. The secret service and special branch had nothing at all to do with the operation. All the police involved were just ordinary officers. The only one alleged to have been a secret service member was Woodcock and such claims are complete BS her simply was a firearm instructor not a SB detective:
(http://s29.postimg.org/4esw4tts7/woodcock.jpg)
-
I don't think there is a contradiction.
West contacted Bonnett to find the nearest unit and what station covered the area, Bonnett dispatched CA07. West then contacted Witham station himself to inform them of the incident and pass on any details.
Look at the first page of Bonnett's log, it says CONTROL under the CA07 despatch. Perhaps that indicates the unit was despite he'd by the control room at HQ, I.e. Bonnett?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=3199;image)
Thought I was going mad there - that's the way I read it too! Thanks Harters!
-
I don't see what difference that makes but where does West state that he sent car CA07?
He never explicitly claimed such. He claimed he spoke to Bonnett to find out what car was in the vicinity and that he spoke directly to Witham after speaking to Bonnett. Some assume this means he claims he ordered the car to go but there is no actual evidence of that and he didn't claim it.
It should be noted that an assessment of his testimony criticized him for not being prepared and not being aware of what he had written in his statements and having to have the statements handed to him in court to see. So he seemed to only know the very general issues not specifics.
-
We don't know what EP did tell the relatives in their attempt to convince them of Sheila's culpability so we cannot know what they didn't tell them. Whatever information was disclosed to the relatives; it would appear that they were unable/unwilling to be swayed by whatever these revelations were.
How can we be sure that the relatives weren't told and that this is the reason they set about trying to prove that Jeremy could have made both calls with theories about wetsuits and bikes?
-
We don't know what EP did tell the relatives in their attempt to convince them of Sheila's culpability so we cannot know what they didn't tell them. Whatever information was disclosed to the relatives; it would appear that they were unable/unwilling to be swayed by whatever these revelations were.
How can we be sure that the relatives weren't told and that this is the reason they set about trying to prove that Jeremy could have made both calls with theories about wetsuits and bikes?
Both what calls? There was only a single call to police.
-
We don't know what EP did tell the relatives in their attempt to convince them of Sheila's culpability so we cannot know what they didn't tell them. Whatever information was disclosed to the relatives; it would appear that they were unable/unwilling to be swayed by whatever these revelations were.
How can we be sure that the relatives weren't told and that this is the reason they set about trying to prove that Jeremy could have made both calls with theories about wetsuits and bikes?
what ever they told the relative they ethere wernt convinced or wernt bothered anyway.
-
We don't know what EP did tell the relatives in their attempt to convince them of Sheila's culpability so we cannot know what they didn't tell them. Whatever information was disclosed to the relatives; it would appear that they were unable/unwilling to be swayed by whatever these revelations were.
How can we be sure that the relatives weren't told and that this is the reason they set about trying to prove that Jeremy could have made both calls with theories about wetsuits and bikes?
I give up!
-
what ever they told the relative they ethere convinced or wernt bothered anyway.
I'm not sure why this is difficult for people to understand BUT if there had been a call from Neville there is NO WAY they could have had a case against Jeremy! The call times (for a start) are 5 mins apart on West and Bonnet's log. West obviously got the time wrong because if Jeremy called him at 03:36 and that was the start of his call, there is NO WAY he'd have made it to the crime scene at the time stated. This is getting silly - the call from Neville didn't happen. It's gleamingly obvious. The two logs refer to the same call and if a call from Neville had been made, the relatives would have had to accept Sheila was the culprit.
-
I'm not sure why this is difficult for people to understand BUT if there had been a call from Neville there is NO WAY they could have had a case against Jeremy! The call times (for a start) are 5 mins apart on West and Bonnet's log. West obviously got the time wrong because if Jeremy called him at 03:36 and that was the start of his call, there is NO WAY he'd have made it to the crime scene at the time stated. This is getting silly - the call from Neville didn't happen. It's gleamingly obvious. The two logs refer to the same call and if a call from Neville had been made, the relatives would have had to accept Sheila was the culprit.
So ridiculously silly, that I suspect certain members are conducting their arguments simply as a wind up.
-
Both what calls? There was only a single call to police.
There was an attempt to prove that Jeremy could have called his cottage from WHF and make it back to Goldhanger to then ring the police which suggests that the police were convinced of at least one call from WHF and one from Goldhanger.
I can think of no good reason why the police would attempt to establish that Jeremy called his own cottage unless they knew that such a call had taken place.
-
they also accused mathew MacDonald of phoning him from there.
-
I'm not sure why this is difficult for people to understand BUT if there had been a call from Neville there is NO WAY they could have had a case against Jeremy! The call times (for a start) are 5 mins apart on West and Bonnet's log. West obviously got the time wrong because if Jeremy called him at 03:36 and that was the start of his call, there is NO WAY he'd have made it to the crime scene at the time stated. This is getting silly - the call from Neville didn't happen. It's gleamingly obvious. The two logs refer to the same call and if a call from Neville had been made, the relatives would have had to accept Sheila was the culprit.
i think we are talking across purposes.
i dident mention the phonecall.
what i mean is what ever taff jones told them to justify his belief it was suicide they ever wernt convinced or wernt bothered.
-
i think we are talking across purposes.
i dident mention the phonecall.
Yes, Nugs, my reply wasn't meant for you, I quoted the wrong post - soz!
-
There was an attempt to prove that Jeremy could have called his cottage from WHF and make it back to Goldhanger to then ring the police which suggests that the police were convinced of at least one call from WHF and one from Goldhanger.
I can think of no good reason why the police would attempt to establish that Jeremy called his own cottage unless they knew that such a call had taken place.
But that's just your opinion and has nothing to do with Neville's call to police.
-
So ridiculously silly, that I suspect certain members are conducting their arguments simply as a wind up.
I agree, are people bothered about the truth or in just protecting what they have believed for so long?
-
I'm not sure why this is difficult for people to understand BUT if there had been a call from Neville there is NO WAY they could have had a case against Jeremy! The call times (for a start) are 5 mins apart on West and Bonnet's log. West obviously got the time wrong because if Jeremy called him at 03:36 and that was the start of his call, there is NO WAY he'd have made it to the crime scene at the time stated. This is getting silly - the call from Neville didn't happen. It's gleamingly obvious. The two logs refer to the same call and if a call from Neville had been made, the relatives would have had to accept Sheila was the culprit.
It's not that people don't understand, just that they don't agree with your "gleamingly" obvious conclusions.
-
It's not that people don't understand, just that they don't agree with your "gleamingly" obvious conclusions.
So, you actually believe that Neville called Bonnet at 03:26 and Jeremy Called West at 03:36? Even though this would make it impossible for him to arrive at the scene at the time indicated? You think even though they had proof that Neville called the the police, they still framed Jeremy and just never mentioned the call from Neville to anyone?
Bonnet's log even states that the call was received from CD 1990 ;D
-
I'm not sure why this is difficult for people to understand BUT if there had been a call from Neville there is NO WAY they could have had a case against Jeremy! The call times (for a start) are 5 mins apart on West and Bonnet's log. West obviously got the time wrong because if Jeremy called him at 03:36 and that was the start of his call, there is NO WAY he'd have made it to the crime scene at the time stated. This is getting silly - the call from Neville didn't happen. It's gleamingly obvious. The two logs refer to the same call and if a call from Neville had been made, the relatives would have had to accept Sheila was the culprit.
If there were a call from Nevill to police the only way Jeremy could be the killer would be if he forced Nevill to make such a call and Nevill complied. Nevill would have to assume Jeremy would then kill them and blame Sheila so Nevill would be unlikely to comply. He woudl be better off telling the turth that Jeremy had a gun on him and then Jeremy would have to either kill him knowing he would be blamed or give up and settle for assault charges. Jeremy would not want to take such a risk.
Likewise it would be unlikely for a third party to want them dead and to put Nevill up to such a call to frame Sheila.
So if Nevill did make such a call there woudl be a tremendous burden to establish Nevll was put up to such call.
For a month police believed Jeremy's claims for the most part. There were only a handful of concerns until the lab results came back. If Nevill had called police they would have believed him in full and had no doubts at all until those lab results came back. Given that initial month they still supported the murder suicide theory there is no reason at all they would have hide a call from Nevill.
More importantly there is no evidence of a call from Nevill the supposed evidence it little more than a joke. The supposed evidence is that Bonnett wrote a quote supposedly from Nevill. They say though Bonnett claims the quote was passed to West from Jeremy and then from West to Bonnett that they believe Nevill spoke to Bonnett directly. On what planet is that evidence? It is an unsupported allegation merely.
-
If there were a call from Nevill to police the only way Jeremy could be the killer would be if he forced Nevill to make such a call and Nevill complied. Nevill would have to assume Jeremy would then kill them and blame Sheila so Nevill would be unlikely to comply. He woudl be better off telling the turth that Jeremy had a gun on him and then Jeremy would have to either kill him knowing he would be blamed or give up and settle for assault charges. Jeremy would not want to take such a risk.
Likewise it would be unlikely for a third party to want them dead and to put Nevill up to such a call to frame Sheila.
So if Nevill did make such a call there woudl be a tremendous burden to establish Nevll was put up to such call.
For a month police believed Jeremy's claims for the most part. There were only a handful of concerns until the lab results came back. If Nevill had called police they would have believed him in full and had no doubts at all until those lab results came back. Given that initial month they still supported the murder suicide theory there is no reason at all they would have hide a call from Nevill.
More importantly there is no evidence of a call from Nevill the supposed evidence it little more than a joke. The supposed evidence is that Bonnett wrote a quote supposedly from Nevill. They say though Bonnett claims the quote was passed to West from Jeremy and then from West to Bonnett that they believe Nevill spoke to Bonnett directly. On what planet is that evidence? It is an unsupported allegation merely.
On planet 'Weak' in the constellation of 'Desperate'
-
I do know one thing,and that's when a call comes through to the station,if it's not an emergency call,the phone isn't answered as quickly , because there are special lines for emergency calls. So Jeremy could have been left waiting while someone eventually answered it.
Has anyone tried ringing the non-emergency number ?
So why then would Bamber not call 999 then? You know its not treat as emergency i know its not and everyone else knows it, except of course Jeremy?
-
Morning Justice
I could never understand why JB did not dial 999 and why did he even think of calling Julie in London a natural reaction would be to drop everything and get to the farm as quickly as possible all the excuses don't wash with me.Have to agree with Adam on this subject well some of it ;D
-
Morning Justice
I could never understand why JB did not dial 999 and why did he even think of calling Julie in London a natural reaction would be to drop everything and get to the farm as quickly as possible all the excuses don't wash with me.Have to agree with Adam on this subject well some of it ;D
Susan, Good Morning :) If we turn the question on it's head and ask why WOULD he call for help urgently if he was responsible for the crime, the answer becomes rhetorical and Adam doesn't come in to the equation.
-
Morning April I note your points and as it is my opinion he was responsible for killing his family he would slow time the call to the police and this is why he spent time looking through a telephone directory and calling Julie he knew the situation at WHF had he not known he would have gone into panic mode and dialled 999 but he knew the situation was dire and urgency was not required.
-
So why then would Bamber not call 999 then? You know its not treat as emergency i know its not and everyone else knows it, except of course Jeremy?
If Jeremy dialed 999 after stating he had JUST received a call from his father, the police might get there while he was still on the phone, enter the house,find everyone had been dead for a while and thr only suspect would be Jeremy because he had just stated he had spoke to a man who must have been deceased at the time.
-
Caroline good point never thought of that it would mean the police would get on the scene immediately and he did not want that.
-
Caroline good point never thought of that it would mean the police would get on the scene immediately and he did not want that.
Exactly!
-
If Jeremy dialed 999 after stating he had JUST received a call from his father, the police might get there while he was still on the phone, enter the house,find everyone had been dead for a while and thr only suspect would be Jeremy because he had just stated he had spoke to a man who must have been deceased at the time.
Spot on again Caroline
-
theres also another reason not to phone 999 if he was planing on carrying out the instructions he cliamed his father ie going down there.
and he just wanted a bit of back rather than the police to actually deal with it i mean according to his story his dad hadent asked him to phone the police.
-
Spot on again Caroline
I see the reasoning of this but cannot see why Jeremy phoned the police at all, it was so unnecessary imo. I know the adage that a psychopath is very proud of what they have achieved and often over eggs things because of that. There is no evidence Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath and there are many people who have been close to Jeremy for a long time who have no doubt he's genuine, there are no doubt some who have the opposite view but in the end we just don't have enough information to judge his personality as most is hearsay and opinion imo.
We have been told he has passed all his test with flying colours and seen an extract from one of these, would be fascinating to see them all and if there was ever any suspicion of narcissm or psychopathy? Without these reports any suggestion of psychiopathy can only be conjecture to make an opinion work imo
-
I see the reasoning of this but cannot see why Jeremy phoned the police at all, it was so unnecessary imo. I know the adage that a psychopath is very proud of what they have achieved and often over eggs things because of that. There is no evidence Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath and there are many people who have been close to Jeremy for a long time who have no doubt he's genuine, there are no doubt some who have the opposite view but in the end we just don't have enough information to judge his personality as most is hearsay and opinion imo.
We have been told he has passed all his test with flying colours and seen an extract from one of these, would be fascinating to see them all and if there was ever any suspicion of narcissm or psychopathy? Without these reports any suggestion of psychiopathy can only be conjecture to make an opinion work imo
The call was made as an alibi - if he's calling the police from Goldhanger, he can't have murdered his family at WHF because he had JUST spoken to his father minutes before his call to police (or so he says) so can't have killed him.
-
Hello Maggie Jeremy phoned the police and Julie to give himself an alibi but what he did in fact by doing this was incriminate himself in the murders this is just my opinion of cause.
-
If Jeremy dialed 999 after stating he had JUST received a call from his father, the police might get there while he was still on the phone, enter the house,find everyone had been dead for a while and thr only suspect would be Jeremy because he had just stated he had spoke to a man who must have been deceased at the time.
Why would dialling 999 mean that the police "might" enter the house but they wouldn't if he dialled the police station directly? As it was the police sped to the incident so why didn't they enter the house and find everybody dead? Is it because Jeremy never called 999?
What an utterly specious argument. Just because others disagree with your reasoning doesn't make their points weak or desperate but the reasoning you have just used most certainly is.
-
Why would dialling 999 mean that the police "might" enter the house but they wouldn't if he dialled the police station directly? As it was the police sped to the incident so why didn't they enter the house and find everybody dead? Is it because Jeremy never called 999?
What an utterly specious argument. Just because others disagree with your reasoning doesn't make their points weak or desperate but the reasoning you have just used most certainly is.
One of the reasons the police didn't enter straight away, was because of the information obtained from Jeremy whilst at the scene. The information that there were lots and lots of guns in the house, all loaded, all readily available and Sheila was able to use them all.
I'm guessing that Caroline is suggesting that the police would not have been so cautious about entering the house, if Jeremy was not at the scene providing what we now know to be false information.
-
Why would dialling 999 mean that the police "might" enter the house but they wouldn't if he dialled the police station directly? As it was the police sped to the incident so why didn't they enter the house and find everybody dead? Is it because Jeremy never called 999?
What an utterly specious argument. Just because others disagree with your reasoning doesn't make their points weak or desperate but the reasoning you have just used most certainly is.
you would expect the police to act more quickly if you dail 999 but that dosent necessarily mean the will act more quickly.
-
Why would dialling 999 mean that the police "might" enter the house but they wouldn't if he dialled the police station directly? As it was the police sped to the incident so why didn't they enter the house and find everybody dead? Is it because Jeremy never called 999?
What an utterly specious argument. Just because others disagree with your reasoning doesn't make their points weak or desperate but the reasoning you have just used most certainly is.
A 999 number is an emergency number and response to a 999 call is different - hence why it is the 'emergency' number. He had no urgency when he called West but as West kept him hanging on, he started getting more stressed - you could argue that he was worried BUT you could also argue that he was worried that a car had already been sent to the scene and might get there before he had a chance to manipulate things to his advantage.
-
you would expect the police to act more quickly if you dail 999 but that dosent necessarily mean the will act more quickly.
I think we'd all agree that in an emergency, dialing 999 would be the most appropriate course of action for the swiftest possible response.
In this case, a 999 call would have removed PC West from the communication chain saving a few minutes at least.
More of a concern, is that Jeremy not only failed to dial 999, he also took about 15 minutes (or 25 minutes if you are going for the 3:36 time) to actually phone the police. So why would he complain about being on hold for 3 minutes? ???
You've also got to fit in a call to Julie, either before or after calling the police, he's claimed both.
None of this makes sense, it stinks.
-
you would expect the police to act more quickly if you dail 999 but that dosent necessarily mean the will act more quickly.
Look at it this way, in an emergency would you diall 999 for free or spend time looking up a police station number and pay for the call? Which one would get help quicker a 999 call or 10 mins looking up a number?
-
i think weather you call 999 or not really depends on what your expecting the police to do.
if you just want them to knock on the door and see if things are ok you might not dail 999.
what was he expecting from the police thats the qustion.
-
i think weather you call 999 or not really depends on what your expecting the police to do.
if you just want them to knock on the door and see if things are ok you might not dail 999.
what was he expecting from the police thats the qustion.
So being woken at daft o'clock telling you someone's going crazy with a gun is just a polite knock on the door?
-
well it was his own sister and his father hadent asked him to ring the police i doubt if he would of wanted the police to go in there all guns blazing.
if he just wanted them there as back up he might not dial 999
-
well it was his own sister and his father hadent asked him to ring the police i doubt if he would of wanted the police to go in there all guns blazing.
if he just wanted them there as back up he might not dial 999
After a few seconds the phone went dead? Not registering yet?
-
well if i was woken out of my sleep after a long days work with message like that to tell you the truth i dont what i would do i think it might take a while to sink i.
then id have to think of the best course of action should i phone the police or not phoning the police might make things worse.
but then me going down there might make things worse but then agian i cant just do nothing working out the best course of action off the top of my head would be hard.
-
well if i was woken out of my sleep after a long days work with message like that to tell you the truth i dont what i would do i think it might take a while to sink i.
then id have to think of the best course of action should i phone the police or not phoning the police might make things worse.
but then me going down there might make things worse but then agian i cant just do nothing working out the best course of action off the top of my head would be hard.
I agree nugs and even harder if your dad has always emphasised family is private and the police are busybodies. If Nevill had said 'Sheila has got the gun, get over here pronto and dial 999 before you come' that would be very different, nothing is ever clear cut in situations like this and hind sight is a wonderful thing.
-
well its just someone going crazy with a gun its own sister which is very different.
because its a relative dong it you thinking about there safety as well.
-
I agree nugs and even harder if your dad has always emphasised family is private and the police are busybodies. If Nevill had said 'Sheila has got the gun, get over here pronto and dial 999 before you come' that would be very different, nothing is ever clear cut in situations like this and hind sight is a wonderful thing.
Point taken Maggie but, the fact being Jeremy said his father sounded distressed, Sheila has gone crazy she has got a gun , the phone line has gone dead, no reply when trying to ring back and the time of the call still would not have made it a little more clear cut? I don't think any hind sight was needed.
-
i wonder weather the first time this had happend.
-
i wonder weather the first time this had happend.
I think Jeremy would have talked about it if it had happened before - I mean with a gun; but there had been emergemcy episodes with Sheila before where Nevill was called - not police.
I think that Jeremy was thoroughly confused about what to do. I do think he called Julie before he called police, and he did it to get her advise. "Hi darling, everything is going well (with me, but) something is wrong at the farm."
Julie snubbed him, and he made a compromise by calling the local police - afraid to make his father angry by calling police at all.
-
when i think about i might be rather angry if i phoned my son and asked him to come down and then a load of coppers turned up.
-
I think Jeremy would have talked about it if it had happened before - I mean with a gun; but there had been emergemcy episodes with Sheila before where Nevill was called - not police.
I think that Jeremy was thoroughly confused about what to do. I do think he called Julie before he called police, and he did it to get her advise. "Hi darling, everything is going well (with me, but) something is wrong at the farm."
Julie snubbed him, and he made a compromise by calling the local police - afraid to make his father angry by calling police at all.
Alias, do you not think that "Hi, darling, everything is going well (with me but?)....................." is a somewhat inappropriate thing to say having got her out of bed in the middle of the night? Why would she need to know all was well with him? Surely the important thing was what may be happening at the harm.
-
I think Jeremy would have talked about it if it had happened before - I mean with a gun; but there had been emergemcy episodes with Sheila before where Nevill was called - not police.
I think that Jeremy was thoroughly confused about what to do. I do think he called Julie before he called police, and he did it to get her advise. "Hi darling, everything is going well (with me, but) something is wrong at the farm."
Julie snubbed him, and he made a compromise by calling the local police - afraid to make his father angry by calling police at all.
Exactly.Selectively misinterpreted. Like most phrases that Jeremy was alleged to have said. Twisted to suit.
-
Alias, do you not think that "Hi, darling, everything is going well (with me but?)....................." is a somewhat inappropriate thing to say having got her out of bed in the middle of the night? Why would she need to know all was well with him? Surely the important thing was what may be happening at the harm.
I think she would have said: "Why are you calling me in the middle of the night, are you OK?" Or words to that effect - would be natural; and his response would be: "Everything is going well (with me, but) something is wrong at the farm."
It makes sense.
-
I think she would have said: "Why are you calling me in the middle of the night, are you OK?" Or words to that effect - would be natural; and his response would be: "Everything is going well (with me, but) something is wrong at the farm."
It makes sense.
I could be wrong, but it all sounds a touch too casual. I think if he'd been frantic with worry he'd have ignored her questions -which, incidentally DO make sense- and responded with words to the effect of "I'm sorry, but something is wrong at the farm" OR "No. I'm worried sick. I've just had this call from dad".
-
its hard to work out a normal reaction because its not a normal situation
-
its hard to work out a normal reaction because its not a normal situation
You're right there, Nugs :)
-
it sounds a bit to causal to me as well but i don't know how it was said in what tone of voice and not knowing him i couldent say how hes likely to react in a crises.
-
Who else could Jeremy have rang at that hour of the morning ? The relatives weren't close,more's the pity because if he had been able to ring them then he wouldn't have had such scathing accusations made against him.
-
it sounds a bit to causal to me as well but i don't know how it was said in what tone of voice and not knowing him i couldent say how hes likely to react in a crises.
That's an excellent point, Nugs. The tone of the voice would have given a bigger clue than the words themselves.
-
I think she would have said: "Why are you calling me in the middle of the night, are you OK?" Or words to that effect - would be natural; and his response would be: "Everything is going well (with me, but) something is wrong at the farm."
It makes sense.
I think that is plausible, Alias.
The idea that Jeremy didn't call 999 in order to delay the police defies credibility. The police sped to the incident because of what was said anyway. Would he have said something different on a 999 call? and if not then why would the police burst in depending on which number was called?
Whether he dialled 999 or not the incident was being dealt with as an emergency for obvious reasons.
-
I think that is plausible, Alias.
The idea that Jeremy didn't call 999 in order to delay the police defies credibility. The police sped to the incident because of what was said anyway. Would he have said something different on a 999 call? and if not then why would the police burst in depending on which number was called?
Whether he dialled 999 or not the incident was being dealt with as an emergency for obvious reasons.
What defies credibility is to believe that Jeremy would have been framed bu EP when half the force knew a call had been received from his father and that Jeremy was innocent.
-
its hard to work out a normal reaction because its not a normal situation
And because all people/families have their own idiosyncrasies you cannot say what people's reactions to stressful situations would be normal for them individually anyway.
I think some people try to read too much into Jeremy's behaviour and reactions on the night .
-
I think that is plausible, Alias.
The idea that Jeremy didn't call 999 in order to delay the police defies credibility. The police sped to the incident because of what was said anyway. Would he have said something different on a 999 call? and if not then why would the police burst in depending on which number was called?
Whether he dialled 999 or not the incident was being dealt with as an emergency for obvious reasons.
And anyway, what would be the difference for Jeremy, 999 or local police? Why would he have any interest in delaying anything - he could as well have called 999 if he were the killer.
-
What defies credibility is to believe that Jeremy would have been framed bu EP when half the force knew a call had been received from his father and that Jeremy was innocent.
Sure - probably that call wasn´t made. Wording on copied log odd and illogical though, which opens wide up for speculation.
-
The bottom line is that he didn't know what to do for the best,and he certainly didn't realise the severity of the situation. In fact he didn't know what was going on,it's as simple as that.
-
What defies credibility is to believe that Jeremy would have been framed bu EP when half the force knew a call had been received from his father and that Jeremy was innocent.
i know im being slightly irrelevant here but the west midlands police were fully aware the birmingham 6 were innocent but they still went ahead and framed them anyway.
another case is stephen kisko were the police were fully aware of innocence.
-
What defies credibility is to believe that Jeremy would have been framed bu EP when half the force knew a call had been received from his father and that Jeremy was innocent.
But you still believe he was framed anyway so how many of EP knew in your scenario that he was framed but guilty? Half of them? All of them?
And it is you saying that half of EP knew a call had been received from his father not me so don't put words into my mouth to make your argument. Why would "half the force" know a call had been received?
-
i wouldn't think any policeman who wasn't directly would in the case would be privy to any inside knowledge about it.
-
But you still believe he was framed anyway so how many of EP knew in your scenario that he was framed but guilty? Half of them? All of them?
And it is you saying that half of EP knew a call had been received from his father not me so don't put words into my mouth to make your argument. Why would "half the force" know a call had been received?
I was being sarcastic ::). You still haven't answered the question of WHY the call would be kept secret and why an innocent man would be framed?
-
i wouldn't think any policeman who wasn't directly would in the case would be privy to any inside knowledge about it.
Stan Jones was involved, IF there had been a call from Neville he would have been privy to it and yet, he thought Jeremy was guilty. If he knew about such a call - he would have known he was innocent.
-
That second call didn't emerge until 2004.so whether any officers " knew " or didn't,it was all about timings that had been entered wrongly on the log by Bonnett.
A full explanation is on the Official website.
-
That second call didn't emerge until 2004.so whether any officers " knew " or didn't,it was all about timings that had been entered wrongly on the log by Bonnett.
A full explanation is on the Official website.
So, if Bonnet entered the time wrong (03:26) and West was correct with his timing, it means Jeremy didn't call the police until 03:36?? What was he doing from 03:10 to 03:36? That's 26 mins of doing ....... ?
-
Rolling logs,notes pertaining to the tragedy as events happened,such as Nevilles' phone-call which was a continuation of Jeremys' call. It took 22 years to fathom that one out.
Known as sloppy police work.Even the big chief Mick Gradwell wasn't very impressed with the way it was conducted.
-
I was being sarcastic ::). You still haven't answered the question of WHY the call would be kept secret and why an innocent man would be framed?
What was it that Taff whispered into RWB ear , ending with the word's ' now do you believe me ' ?
-
Stan Jones was involved, IF there had been a call from Neville he would have been privy to it and yet, he thought Jeremy was guilty. If he knew about such a call - he would have known he was innocent.
Do you believe SJ went to the bank with JM ?
Why do you believe SJ interviewed JM so many times ?
-
So, if Bonnet entered the time wrong (03:26) and West was correct with his timing, it means Jeremy didn't call the police until 03:36?? What was he doing from 03:10 to 03:36? That's 26 mins of doing ....... ?
the Dickinson report said it was west that West made the mistake - and yet I always thought it was Bonnet that was put on the spot.
after reading that I am more confused than ever.
-
I was being sarcastic ::). You still haven't answered the question of WHY the call would be kept secret and why an innocent man would be framed?
I haven't answered your questions because I couldn't possibly know, although once the decision to frame an innocent man had been taken then the question of why the call would be kept secret answers itself.
Why they would frame an innocent man is a question I can only speculate on, but innocent men have been knowingly framed so many times that I fail to see why you consider this a valid argument.
So in your scenario what proportion of the force knew he was framed but were ok about it because they knew him to be guilty? And exactly how did they know he was guilty because if the evidence was fabricated then what did they base their certainty on? A hunch, gut feeling what?
Where was the sarcasm by the way; I must have missed it. All I could see was a claim that EP couldn't have framed JB because half the force would know about his father's call and that for this reason my claims lacked credibility.
It is clear that it would make no difference to the police response whether the call was 999 or not; the details of the incident are the same either way and that is what informs the response not the number dialled.
-
Am I missing something - if they framed him because they KNEW 100% he was guilty - then they would not need to frame him because the would have the evidence/ proof anyway ?
Or if they framed him because they THOUGHT he was guilty - then they did not have enough evidence, and needed to frame him to get a conviction and therefore they could have been wrong and they were actually framing an innocent man?
Excuse me if I am not making sense , had a stressful day in the office :)
-
Am I missing something - if they framed him because they KNEW 100% he was guilty - then they would not need to frame him because the would have the evidence/ proof anyway ?
Or if they framed him because they THOUGHT he was guilty - then they did not have enough evidence, and needed to frame him to get a conviction and therefore they could have been wrong and they were actually framing an innocent man?
Excuse me if I am not making sense , had a stressful day in the office :)
Jansus, pour yourself a glass of wine and put your feet up. :)
-
Am I missing something - if they framed him because they KNEW 100% he was guilty - then they would not need to frame him because the would have the evidence/ proof anyway ?
Or if they framed him because they THOUGHT he was guilty - then they did not have enough evidence, and needed to frame him to get a conviction and therefore they could have been wrong and they were actually framing an innocent man?
Excuse me if I am not making sense , had a stressful day in the office :)
Makes perfect sense Jansus.
-
EP didn't have a thing on Jeremy at all. He was arrested purely and simply for the break-in at the caravan site,and that then was used as a method of trying to make him confess to the murders.
If he hadn't have had such a record,they couldn't have arrested him for murder without any concrete evidence. This tells you how desperate EP were to get a conviction------with a little help. I bet anything that this " plan " was discussed around the table,minus a Dictaphone,but complete with relatives,as their willingness to " co-operate went way over the top.
-
What was it that Taff whispered into RWB ear , ending with the word's ' now do you believe me ' ?
We don't know but are apparently meant to assume that it wasn't that a phone call had been received from Nevill but show no curiosity beyond that.
-
the Dickinson report said it was west that West made the mistake - and yet I always thought it was Bonnet that was put on the spot.
after reading that I am more confused than ever.
It was West, he even says that it was possible he made a mistake.
-
I haven't answered your questions because I couldn't possibly know, although once the decision to frame an innocent man had been taken then the question of why the call would be kept secret answers itself.
Why they would frame an innocent man is a question I can only speculate on, but innocent men have been knowingly framed so many times that I fail to see why you consider this a valid argument.
So in your scenario what proportion of the force knew he was framed but were ok about it because they knew him to be guilty? And exactly how did they know he was guilty because if the evidence was fabricated then what did they base their certainty on? A hunch, gut feeling what?
Where was the sarcasm by the way; I must have missed it. All I could see was a claim that EP couldn't have framed JB because half the force would know about his father's call and that for this reason my claims lacked credibility.
It is clear that it would make no difference to the police response whether the call was 999 or not; the details of the incident are the same either way and that is what informs the response not the number dialled.
Of course innocent men have been knowingly framed - but how many have been framed when they have known who the guilty party was at the beginning of an investigation?
-
Am I missing something - if they framed him because they KNEW 100% he was guilty - then they would not need to frame him because the would have the evidence/ proof anyway ?
Or if they framed him because they THOUGHT he was guilty - then they did not have enough evidence, and needed to frame him to get a conviction and therefore they could have been wrong and they were actually framing an innocent man?
Excuse me if I am not making sense , had a stressful day in the office :)
But as gringo points out innocent men have been framed before, police have falsified evidence many times when they have thought someone was guilty but didn't think they had enough to convict or wanted to be certain of a conviction. But where is there an example of someone being framed when the police are certain they were innocent because they knew who the culprit was?
-
What was it that Taff whispered into RWB ear , ending with the word's ' now do you believe me ' ?
I dunno, what was it?
-
Do you believe SJ went to the bank with JM ?
Why do you believe SJ interviewed JM so many times ?
Yes to your first point and I imagine she was being coached as a witness on the second but what's that got to do with the call supposedly made by Neville.
-
the Dickinson report said it was west that West made the mistake - and yet I always thought it was Bonnet that was put on the spot.
after reading that I am more confused than ever.
West's own words
-
I dunno, what was it?
I don't know , but was he told Neville called the police ? You have said Taff wanted the family of his
back , if SJ was prepared to set up JB , why would he not be prepared to hide the call from Neville ?
Also remember Taff believed SC was trying to get JB to WHF to kill him .
I personally think that the logs maybe altered in someway , i believe the originals should be produced for ESDA testing , the other log ( Tolleshunt ) as obviously been altered by someone somehow , all originals should be produced , EP should not have been allowed to fax a copy to JB .
Why would EP go to court to prevent producing a phone log , which as far as they and you are concerned , there is nothing to hide ?
-
Yes to your first point and I imagine she was being coached as a witness on the second but what's that got to do with the call supposedly made by Neville.
Why would anyone need coaching , regarding a story involving their boyfriend killing children , it would be clear as anything !!
-
I don't know , but was he told Neville called the police ? You have said Taff wanted the family of his
back , if SJ was prepared to set up JB , why would he not be prepared to hide the call from Neville ?
Also remember Taff believed SC was trying to get JB to WHF to kill him .
I personally think that the logs maybe altered in someway , i believe the originals should be produced for ESDA testing , the other log ( Tolleshunt ) as obviously been altered by someone somehow , all originals should be produced , EP should not have been allowed to fax a copy to JB .
Why would EP go to court to prevent producing a phone log , which as far as they and you are concerned , there is nothing to hide ?
But all of that is speculation however, the times on the logs are tangible evidence and they don't add up. It's a fact that West's log states 03:36 and a fact that Bonnet's log states 03:26. This being the case the following can't make sense - Jeremy phones West @ 03:36, West passes details to Bonnet @ 03:26 - Which means he is passing on information from Jeremy 'before' Jeremy has even called. So West must have added the time later and Jeremy must have called west BEFORE 03:26. This being the case the suggestion that a car was sent to the scene prior to Jeremy's call doesn't work.
The logs you're talking about contain the same information but on some certain words have been spelled incorrectly. The allegation is that the time was altered from 03:26 to 36 but id Wst called Bonnet at 03:26, this allegation again - doesn't fit.
There is no evidence for a call from Neville, in fact the evidence (timings) suggests the opposite.
-
But all of that is speculation however, the times on the logs are tangible evidence and they don't add up. It's a fact that West's log states 03:36 and a fact that Bonnet's log states 03:26. This being the case the following can't make sense - Jeremy phones West @ 03:36, West passes details to Bonnet @ 03:26 - Which means he is passing on information from Jeremy 'before' Jeremy has even called. So West must have added the time later and Jeremy must have called west BEFORE 03:26. This being the case the suggestion that a car was sent to the scene prior to Jeremy's call doesn't work.
The logs you're talking about contain the same information but on some certain words have been spelled incorrectly. The allegation is that the time was altered from 03:26 to 36 but id Wst called Bonnet at 03:26, this allegation again - doesn't fit.
There is no evidence for a call from Neville, in fact the evidence (timings) suggests the opposite.
You may well be right here , but isn't it convenient that the clock was ten minutes wrong ? What are the chances of that ? 9 minutes or 11 would be far more believable to me , it's as if everything was made to add up after the event to me . Going to court to prevent the log being produced and then faxing it , does not sit well with me , if you are correct why spend money on a court case ?
-
You may well be right here , but isn't it convenient that the clock was ten minutes wrong ? What are the chances of that ? 9 minutes or 11 would be far more believable to me , it's as if everything was made to add up after the event to me . Going to court to prevent the log being produced and then faxing it , does not sit well with me , if you are correct why spend money on a court case ?
The clock wasn't wrong, West just added the time after the call instead of before. He actually says that that sometimes happens.
Not sure what you mean about 'preventing the log going to court'?
-
The clock wasn't wrong, West just added the time after the call instead of before. He actually says that that sometimes happens.
Not sure what you mean about 'preventing the log going to court'?
EP went to court to prevent JB having access to one of the log's , if everything is in order in them all , why not just produce them all , at the outset ?
-
EP went to court to prevent JB having access to one of the log's , if everything is in order in them all , why not just produce them all , at the outset ?
It depends which log?
-
It depends which log?
Why shouldn't they have just been handed to the defence before the trial ? Edmund Lawson QC , claimed he had no recollection of the Bonnett log at trial .
-
Why shouldn't they have just been handed to the defence before the trial ? Edmund Lawson QC , claimed he had no recollection of the Bonnett log at trial .
The Bonnet log was the one they used at trial - it's says so on Jeremy's website, it was Wests log that they found in 2004.
-
The Bonnet log was the one they used at trial - it's says so on Jeremy's website, it was Wests log that they found in 2004.
Sorry my mistake , now why do you believe there was a court case to prevent it's release ?
If it's all simply explained away , how much did the court case cost EP ?
-
It was Caroline's mistake. Jeremy's website is misleading on that point. In Pc West's evidence posted here (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1103.msg34166.html#msg34166), it's very clear that Pc West obtained and referred to his C1 log in court, as he answered questions (such as a question about Sheila's age) by reference to it (but it's not clear that the Jury were given a copy of that log).
He went on to state very clearly that he used his personal radio to contact Witham so that they could send a car, and that car was presumably CA07, as we know that came from Witham, whereas car CA05 was much further away (although possibly based at Maldon), as it took ages to arrive.
-
Sorry my mistake , now why do you believe the was a court case to prevent it's release ?
If it's all simply explained away , how much did the court case cost EP ?
I agree but I think it might simply be because the writing of the logs was pretty shoddy - mistakes galore and it puts them in a bad light or perhaps they knew that Jeremy would try to claim that there were two calls. I honestly don't know. However, I agree that they should just release what they're holding or have someone from his legal team go through everything.
-
It was Caroline's mistake. Jeremy's website is misleading on that point. In Pc West's evidence posted here (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1103.msg34166.html#msg34166), it's very clear that Pc West obtained and referred to his C1 log in court, as he answered questions (such as a question about Sheila's age) by reference to it (but it's not clear that the Jury were given a copy of that log).
He went on to state very clearly that he used his personal radio to contact Witham so that they could send a car, and that car was presumably CA07, as we know that came from Witham, whereas car CA05 was much further away (although possibly based at Maldon), as it took ages to arrive.
My mistake? I think I might have remembered if I had written the info for the Bamber website ;D!! But it's not incorrect, the website is clear - just because he referred to his log, doesn't mean the jury saw it and that is what we're talking about - what the JURY saw.
You're speculating about which car was sent from his call but Bonnet is clear as to which car was sent from his call.
-
The JB official site is clear about which log the jury didn't see but far from being hidden from the defense, West's log must have been in court if he referred to it. So claims that it was withheld don't stand up. This is what the OS states. There is another explanation of why West wrote down the time incorrectly - he filled in the time 'after' the call ended!
-
My mistake?
Yes, your mistake, as you were saying it was Pc West's log that surfaced in 2004. That doesn't make sense, as it was used in the trial and Sheila's logged age was stated at trial. Had Bonnett's log been available at trial, the defence would surely have known that Sheila's age was logged as 26 there. Notice that Mr Arlidge's questioning of Pc West strongly suggests that he had already seen Pc West's C1 log. The log should have been given an exhibit number, but it seems that it wasn't.
You're speculating about which car was sent from his call but Bonnet is clear as to which car was sent from his call.
How so? What exactly in Bonnett's log are you referring to?
By the way, Pc West explained that normal practice is to record the time of the call at the beginning of the call. When asked whether or not he always adhered to that, he said "It is not always practicable to adhere to it, but if we can yes." There is nothing to suggest it wasn't practicable for him to record the time of Jeremy's call at the beginning of the call.
-
Yes, your mistake, as you were saying it was Pc West's log that surfaced in 2004. That doesn't make sense, as it was used in the trial and Sheila's logged age was stated at trial. Had Bonnett's log been available at trial, the defence would surely have known that Sheila's age was logged as 26 there. Notice that Mr Arlidge's questioning of Pc West strongly suggests that he had already seen Pc West's C1 log. The log should have been given an exhibit number, but it seems that it wasn't.
How so? What exactly in Bonnett's log are you referring to?
By the way, Pc West explained that normal practice is to record the time of the call at the beginning of the call. When asked whether or not he always adhered to that, he said "It is not always practicable to adhere to it, but if we can yes." There is nothing to suggest it wasn't practicable for him to record the time of Jeremy's call at the beginning of the call.
Please refer to the exert below. It clearly states that West's log "the C1 log relating to Jeremy’s 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" But has this to say about Bonnet's log (Neville's call) "The above statement (‘message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber’) enabled the prosecution to claim that the one log available to the jury (referring to Nevill’s call) actually referred to the call made by Jeremy[4]. The members of the jury were completely unaware that a separate call had been made by Nevill Bamber"
-
Wasn't Bonnett's log Exhibit No 29 at the original trial? :-\
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5582.0;attach=37043;image)
-
Wasn't Bonnett's log Exhibit No 29 at the original trial? :-\
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5582.0;attach=37043;image)
It's stamped as such - cheers Harters! People must think I make this stuff up for the hell of it. It's all there for people to read, you just have to apply a bit of logic but instead, as usual - it's a case of lets shoot the messenger ::)
-
It's stamped as such - cheers Harters! People must think I make this stuff up for the hell of it. It's all there for people to read, you just have to apply a bit of logic but instead, as usual - it's a case of lets shoot the messenger ::)
It's not as if it's particularly complicated to grasp. It seems that people are making a concerted effort not to get it. It's up to them I guess. :-\
So it looks like both logs were available at the original trial? ???
-
It's not as if it's particularly complicated to grasp.IIt seems that people are making a concerted effort not to get it. It's up to them I guess. :-\
So it looks like both logs were available at the original trial? ???
Yes, both were there just Wests wasn't shown to the jury, but Bonnet's log says the same thing anyway.
-
It's not as if it's particularly complicated to grasp. It seems that people are making a concerted effort not to get it. It's up to them I guess. :-\
So it looks like both logs were available at the original trial? ???
It's hard to admit when you are wrong. Especially when you have spent so long trying to convince people you are right. I just can't think of a decent explanation for why anyone can't see what Caroline is saying. Its clear - surely?
-
It's hard to admit when you are wrong. Especially when you have spent so long trying to convince people you are right. I just can't think of a decent explanation for why anyone can't see what Caroline is saying. Its clear - surely?
T'is to me :)
-
But as gringo points out innocent men have been framed before, police have falsified evidence many times when they have thought someone was guilty but didn't think they had enough to convict or wanted to be certain of a conviction. But where is there an example of someone being framed when the police are certain they were innocent because they knew who the culprit was?
Have you heard of the M25 three because it is more than arguable that the police knew that the real culprits were very probably the prosecutions main witnesses.
The witnesses in question in fact admitted hiding and handling some of the stolen property,admitted stealing the spitfire car used in the crimes,admitted possession of a handgun used by the gang,admitted disposing of the stolen vauxhall and renault cars and fitted the descriptions of the assailants given by the victims, which incidentally was two white and one black male whilst the three convicted were all black.
Do you think it credible to claim that the police in this instance not only knowingly framed innocent but did so knowing the real culprits were probably their main witnesses.
-
Have you heard of the M25 three because it is more than arguable that the police knew that the real culprits were very probably the prosecutions main witnesses.
The witnesses in question in fact admitted hiding and handling some of the stolen property,admitted stealing the spitfire car used in the crimes,admitted possession of a handgun used by the gang,admitted disposing of the stolen vauxhall and renault cars and fitted the descriptions of the assailants given by the victims, which incidentally was two white and one black male whilst the three convicted were all black.
Do you think it credible to claim that the police in this instance not only knowingly framed innocent but did so knowing the real culprits were probably their main witnesses.
It's the words 'very probably' in the Bamber case if they KNEW Neville had called they KNEW he was innocent -not very probably, they KNEW. It's different. Plus if there is a racial element, it's a completely different issue.
-
It's the words 'very probably' in the Bamber case if they KNEW Neville had called they KNEW he was innocent -not very probably, they KNEW. It's different. Plus if there is a racial element, it's a completely different issue.
I used the words "very probably" advisedly because the three witnesses have not subsequently been charged or convicted but I think we can all work out the reasons for this.
If you don't know about the case then perhaps read up on it and you will see that it is not tenable to argue that the police didn't know. Then perhaps you won't erroneously conclude that the "police ethical code" only allows them to frame guilty men who they know to guilty but lack evidence? or innocent men but only under the circumstances where they can't catch the real culprit but definitely not innocent men when they know who really dunnit!
The above sums up your current stance on police corruption although I now see that if race is involved then the rules change again. It's certainly intricate this unwritten ethical code that you believe the police ascribe to.
-
I used the words "very probably" advisedly because the three witnesses have not subsequently been charged or convicted but I think we can all work out the reasons for this.
If you don't know about the case then perhaps read up on it and you will see that it is not tenable to argue that the police didn't know. Then perhaps you won't erroneously conclude that the "police ethical code" only allows them to frame guilty men who they know to guilty but lack evidence? or innocent men but only under the circumstances where they can't catch the real culprit but definitely not innocent men when they know who really dunnit!
The above sums up your current stance on police corruption although I now see that if race is involved then the rules change again. It's certainly intricate this unwritten ethical code that you believe the police ascribe to.
It sounds like you want me to say that I agree police would frame Jeremy Bamber when they KNEW Sheila was guilty and I'm not going to sat it because I don't believe that that is what happened. I believe he is guilty and using anything he possibly can to wrangle out of it. Of course a racial case is different to the Bamber case and I think you know that.
-
It sounds like you want me to say that I agree police would frame Jeremy Bamber when they KNEW Sheila was guilty and I'm not going to sat it because I don't believe that that is what happened. I believe he is guilty and using anything he possibly can to wrangle out of it. Of course a racial case is different to the Bamber case and I think you know that.
You asked me to provide an example of police framing someone when they knew who the real culprits were so I gave you an example where it is difficult to argue otherwise.
It was you who made the claim that it is somehow different when police know the real culprit and that under these circumstances they wouldn't frame an innocent man.
If you believe that I want you to agree and say anything of the sort then you are mistaken, I am just pointing out the flaws in your argument, which is ever evolving apparently.
Your views on police corruption and their ethics is bizarre and whether you believe that Jeremy was framed,despite some police knowing of his innocence, or not is neither here nor there. What is clear is that the reasoning on which this belief is based is merely your opinion of police ethics which is seemingly made up as you go along.
-
You asked me to provide an example of police framing someone when they knew who the real culprits were so I gave you an example where it is difficult to argue otherwise.
It was you who made the claim that it is somehow different when police know the real culprit and that under these circumstances they wouldn't frame an innocent man.
If you believe that I want you to agree and say anything of the sort then you are mistaken, I am just pointing out the flaws in your argument, which is ever evolving apparently.
Your views on police corruption and their ethics is bizarre and whether you believe that Jeremy was framed,despite some police knowing of his innocence, or not is neither here nor there. What is clear is that the reasoning on which this belief is based is merely your opinion of police ethics which is seemingly made up as you go along.
I think the same about your views - we'll have to agree to disagree but your example is nothing like the Bamber case. You used the term 'Very Probably' and them admitted there was a racial element.
-
I think the same about your views - we'll have to agree to disagree but your example is nothing like the Bamber case. You used the term 'Very Probably' and then admitted there was a racial element.
If you have an example there police definitely knew an individual was innocent and was framed whilst knowing who the real culprit was - without a racial element. Then I will have to concede that it does happen. However in the mean time, what motive would EP have for doing such a thing?
-
If you have an example there police definitely knew an individual was innocent and was framed whilst knowing who the real culprit was - without a racial element. Then I will have to concede that it does happen. However in the mean time, what motive would EP have for doing such a thing?
I think the same about your views - we'll have to agree to disagree but your example is nothing like the Bamber case. You used the term 'Very Probably' and them admitted there was a racial element.
I made clear why I used the "very probably" and it isn't because it is only very probable that the police knew. Read it and see for yourself. As for me "admitting there was a racial element" as if to imply that I should have somehow implicitly understood that blacks or races other than white would obviously be seen as ok to frame even in circumstances where they know the real perpetrator; you are simply shifting the goalposts and blatantly so.
When did you specify that police would never frame an innocent man when knowing the real culprit unless they were black when they might do? It is you who have decided that the three were framed because they were black despite seemingly knowing very little about the case.
You have already conceded the point anyway with your new addition of a racial element not being present in your qualifying criteria.
-
I made clear why I used the "very probably" and it isn't because it is only very probable that the police knew. Read it and see for yourself. As for me "admitting there was a racial element" as if to imply that I should have somehow implicitly understood that blacks or races other than white would obviously be seen as ok to frame even in circumstances where they know the real perpetrator; you are simply shifting the goalposts and blatantly so.
When did you specify that police would never frame an innocent man when knowing the real culprit unless they were black when they might do? It is you who have decided that the three were framed because they were black despite seemingly knowing very little about the case.
You have already conceded the point anyway with your new addition of a racial element not being present in your qualifying criteria.
No, I haven't conceded anything - it's not unreasonable to ask for an example of a similar case to the one being discussed. It's not like the police haven't been accused of being institutionally racist in the past and that could be an element that played a role in their lack of concern for framing these guys - I'm not saying it's right but cases of racism are well documented. I will read about the case.
-
Those logs don´t prove anything, one way or the other. Isn´t that the conclusion?
-
Those logs don´t prove anything, one way or the other. Isn´t that the conclusion?
No, they prove there was no second call by Neville. Jeremy's call must have been 'before; 03:26 because that's when West relayed Jeremy's call to Bonnet and as Bonnet's log was simply a regurgitation of Jeremy's call, there is no call (logged or otherwise) from Neville. Both logs refer to Jeremy's call.
-
I believe Jeremy will hang on to anything. But this alleged phone call is not important in either proving Jeremy´s guilt or innosence, is it? What can be proven by this other than Jeremy holding on to anything that can free him?
-
I believe Jeremy will hang on to anything. But this alleged phone call is not important in either proving Jeremy´s guilt or innosence, is it? What can be proven by this other than Jeremy holding on to anything that can free him?
It doesn't prove he is guilty but the log was available at the trial - it wasn't hidden so it's not the big discovery that the OS are leading people to believe.
-
I believe Jeremy will hang on to anything. But this alleged phone call is not important in either proving Jeremy´s guilt or innosence, is it? What can be proven by this other than Jeremy holding on to anything that can free him?e
It is important because if it is proved that there was a call from Neville then Jeremy is innocent.
The logs don't prove anything one way or the other but there are discrepancies which deserve better than the explanations thus far offered. As is usual in this case the police refuse to release evidence which would assist in clearing the matter up (in this instance releasing the original logs for esda testing).
Despite EP's refusal to assist in establishing the truth we are meant to believe their excuses which involve more "mistakes" and "wrong timings" than is feasible.
When only one side don't want all of the evidence out in the open it is fair to assume that it is they who have most to fear from the truth.
-
When only one side don't want all of the evidence out in the open it is fair to assume that it is they who have most to fear from the truth.
What a good sentence.
-
Thank you Gringo and Alias you are correct and let's not forget the Guildford Four and the hidden file
Unfortunately Caroline thinks she knows a lot more than experts that have studied the case
Ewen ?
-
The police hide things because they can!!
It's just a matter of time in this case
-
Please refer to the exert below. It clearly states that West's log "the C1 log relating to Jeremy’s call (written by PC West) was not shown to the jury.
The exert doesn't deal with what the defence knew originally, as compared with what came to light in 2004. From Pc West's evidence at the trial, the defence knew the nature of the C1 log at the very least, and they knew that it gave Sheila's age as 27. If the defence had seen Bonnett's log at the time of the trial, they would immediately have noticed the two most obvious discrepancies: (1) Sheila's age is given differently, and (2) CA07 is logged as despatched at 03:35, a minute before the time that Pc West logged and mentioned in evidence. If the defence had not seen it already, they would have requested any statement that Bonnett gave, and discovered that Bonnett claimed to have despatched car CA07, whereas Pc West clearly stated at trial that he had contacted Witham to have that car despatched. Because it was clearly known at the trial that Pc West's reference to 03:36 seemed to be incorrect, it is extremely unlikely that the defence had seen the document (Bonnett's log) that showed 03:26. As to the note "Message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber..." on Bonnett's log, this has been talked about a lot since 2004, but show me any document that refers to it prior to 2004.
-
It doesn't prove he is guilty but the log was available at the trial - it wasn't hidden so it's not the big discovery that the OS are leading people to believe.
If it was available at trial . how come EP went to court to prevent it being released ?
Surely they would have simply said ' it was available at trial ' ?
Why would Edmund Lawson QC have no recollection of it at trial ?
Can you put up both log's up here please , also the letter from Lawson ?
-
Caroline this is good read for you , fitted up , when a crime never even happened .
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1991/dec/12/pc-tony-salt
-
Exhibit 29.
(http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-RUhuB8rVPjg/UYq4zYb8R-I/AAAAAAAACsk/Vyu7obc2TlI/s2048/IMAGE_4C928B6A-16EA-4681-9D58-36CD5A44AFF2.PNG)
-
Are those dates (13.9.86 and 9.8.86) on Pc West's statements (exhibits 30 and 31) incorrect? Shouldn't the year be 85?
In any case, have these statements been posted anywhere? I would like to read them.
-
Alias if the police did hide evidence it was not to cover up Jeremy Bamber's innocence but their own mistakes as they did make a pigs ear of the investigation just my opinion of course I don't profess to be an expert.
-
Are those dates (13.9.86 and 9.8.86) on Pc West's statements (exhibits 30 and 31) incorrect? Shouldn't the year be 85?
In any case, have these statements been posted anywhere? I would like to read them.
They may be other statements taken in 1986 whilst preparing for the trial.
In any case, they are not available in the public domain.
-
Why would EP go to court to prevent producing a phone log , which as far as they and you are concerned , there is nothing to hide?
To clarify, I think Essex Police claimed they couldn't find the original first pages of Pc West's C1 log and Bonnett's communications log, but various photocopies, not all the same, were supplied. EP had to be taken to court to obtain further logging by Bonnett, but even that seems to be incomplete. Regarding Pc West's log, it seems likely that Pc West was using a multipart pad, so that there would be several "originals", one of which would be the "top copy". These parts could have been separated early on so that various officers could read them. These parts seem then to have been altered to correct minor errors. That may help explain why there have been photocopies of the C1 log that differ slightly from each other.
-
To clarify, I think Essex Police claimed they couldn't find the original first pages of Pc West's C1 log and Bonnett's communications log, but various photocopies, not all the same, were supplied. EP had to be taken to court to obtain further logging by Bonnett, but even that seems to be incomplete. Regarding Pc West's log, it seems likely that Pc West was using a multipart pad, so that there would be several "originals", one of which would be the "top copy". These parts could have been separated early on so that various officers could read them. These parts seem then to have been altered to correct minor errors. That may help explain why there have been photocopies of the C1 log that differ slightly from each other.
Thank's for the explanation . Do you have a link to any parts , that seem to be altered ?
-
First phone log timed at 3.26am, bears heading at start of message - "DAUGHTER HAS GONE BERSERK", let us not overlook the fact that when Jeremy made his call timed at 3.36am, that he never used such a phrase, or such a collection of words, neither did he say that Sheila was his daughter, nor did he ever claim that Sheila had got one of his guns (how many guns which were at the farm actually belong to Jeremy). Additionally, the ages mentioned in both logs are different...
What can be shown, is that in phone log 3.26am, there is added on at the end of the main body of information, that the "son had contacted CD with a message", which is consistent with Jeremy having made his call at 3.36am, information which was relayed to the author of the earlier message (3.26am), and duly added on at the conclusion of Ralphs message, for the purpose of continuity. Sheila was not Jeremys daughter, Jeremy did not own the guns kept at whf, Jeremy did not say that his daughter had gone berserk, Jeremy gave a different age for his sister in his phone call (3.36am)...
The entire contents of phone log 3.26am, could not possible relate solely to what Jeremy told the police, there are far too many inconsistencies, contradictions and things which simply do not stack up...
There were clearly two different telephone calls made to the police, one from the scene (whf), and the other from Jeremys cottage - with this in mind, and taking into account the suggestion that there was some sort of time abberration to explain why the timing of one of these calls was recorded 10 minutes later than it actually was made, then how could Jeremy have been at the scene, and back at his cottage, at one and the same time?
Impossible!!!
-
They may be other statements taken in 1986 whilst preparing for the trial.
That's impossible, as Mr Rivlin referred to Pc West's statement of 13th September "last year", i.e., 1985, when cross-examining Pc West, and Pc West read out parts of that statement and agreed that he wrote it a month after the event. He also mentioned that he had previously made a shorter statement on 9th August.
Perhaps mike tesko has copies of Pc West's statements. I would like to read them.
-
That's impossible, as Mr Rivlin referred to Pc West's statement of 13th September "last year", i.e., 1985, when cross-examining Pc West, and Pc West read out parts of that statement and agreed that he wrote it a month after the event. He also mentioned that he had previously made a shorter statement on 9th August.
Perhaps mike tesko has copies of Pc West's statements. I would like to read them.
Yes you are probably right on that.
-
The exert doesn't deal with what the defence knew originally, as compared with what came to light in 2004. From Pc West's evidence at the trial, the defence knew the nature of the C1 log at the very least, and they knew that it gave Sheila's age as 27. If the defence had seen Bonnett's log at the time of the trial, they would immediately have noticed the two most obvious discrepancies: (1) Sheila's age is given differently, and (2) CA07 is logged as despatched at 03:35, a minute before the time that Pc West logged and mentioned in evidence. If the defence had not seen it already, they would have requested any statement that Bonnett gave, and discovered that Bonnett claimed to have despatched car CA07, whereas Pc West clearly stated at trial that he had contacted Witham to have that car despatched. Because it was clearly known at the trial that Pc West's reference to 03:36 seemed to be incorrect, it is extremely unlikely that the defence had seen the document (Bonnett's log) that showed 03:26. As to the note "Message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber..." on Bonnett's log, this has been talked about a lot since 2004, but show me any document that refers to it prior to 2004.
I really don't have a clue what your point is? I have produced evidence from Jeremy's own campaign site that states clearly that Bonnet's log was shown to the jury, so the defence must have seen it. If you don't want to accept that, then take it up with the campaign but I am sure they would know what documents were or weren't shown to the jury.
-
To clarify, I think Essex Police claimed they couldn't find the original first pages of Pc West's C1 log and Bonnett's communications log, but various photocopies, not all the same, were supplied. EP had to be taken to court to obtain further logging by Bonnett, but even that seems to be incomplete. Regarding Pc West's log, it seems likely that Pc West was using a multipart pad, so that there would be several "originals", one of which would be the "top copy". These parts could have been separated early on so that various officers could read them. These parts seem then to have been altered to correct minor errors. That may help explain why there have been photocopies of the C1 log that differ slightly from each other.
I have copies of these logs and they are just minor spelling errors, the allegation was that the time had been altered on West's log.
-
I have copies of these logs and they are just minor spelling errors, the allegation was that the time had been altered on West's log.
Can you post them please ?
-
Can you post them please ?
No sorry, there was a video produced by the CT that stated they weren't allowed to show the logs for legal reasons. Obviously due to that, I can't post them here. I did post them and they were here for a few days but when I saw that, I took them down.
-
Thank you Gringo and Alias you are correct and let's not forget the Guildford Four and the hidden file
Unfortunately Caroline thinks she knows a lot more than experts that have studied the case
Ewen ?
Why don't you explain the logs Jackie?
-
The police hide things because they can!!
It's just a matter of time in this case
What in relation to the logs has been hidden? I've seen the logs that were eventually released - just a few spelling mistakes ....... and?
-
It is important because if it is proved that there was a call from Neville then Jeremy is innocent.
The logs don't prove anything one way or the other but there are discrepancies which deserve better than the explanations thus far offered. As is usual in this case the police refuse to release evidence which would assist in clearing the matter up (in this instance releasing the original logs for esda testing).
Despite EP's refusal to assist in establishing the truth we are meant to believe their excuses which involve more "mistakes" and "wrong timings" than is feasible.
When only one side don't want all of the evidence out in the open it is fair to assume that it is they who have most to fear from the truth.
The Neville called the police notion does not stand up it's just more conspiracy theories. I agree they should release all they have and put an end to this once and for all.
Say Neville did call the police ..... he called Jeremy at 03:10, if he called Bonnet at 03:26 what was he doing for the 16 minutes between calling Jeremy and calling Bonnet? Why is the information exactly the same as on Jeremy's log (different words used - same info), why was the line engaged when Jeremy tried to call back if Neville didn't call the police until 16 mins later and still engaged when West tried calling? Then of course there is the notion that the call was never mentioned to anyone - a call that proved that EP's initial take on the case was correct - Sheila was guilty and Jeremy was innocent. Why would this call be kept secret?
-
Why don't you explain the logs Jackie?
Because they are not relevant either way, you seem to like going in circles
It's another issue like Jeremy hated his family/Sheila
You know very well if it was cut and dry no solicitor would take on the case
Ngb has given lots of help why don't you ask him
There are much more important issues like the silencer and was it used and who put the silencer where? The files that should be released when it was first thought to be a suicide
The interviews that took place with Julie Mugford that are 'missing ' Ngb thinks they could be important
Taff Jones notes
Caroline how much help did you give JB when you thought he was innocent?
There's lots you could have done ????
Maybe you could fight to get the information held under pii to be released to show JB is GUiLTY
Instead of sitting around every night with your finger over the ban button
It's like your permanently on a power trip
None of the other mods behave like you
-
Because they are not relevant either way, you seem to like going in circles
It's another issue like Jeremy hated his family/Sheila
You know very well if it was cut and dry no solicitor would take on the case
Ngb has given lots of help why don't you ask him
There are much more important issues like the silencer and was it used and who put the silencer where? The files that should be released when it was first thought to be a suicide
The interviews that took place with Julie Mugford that are 'missing ' Ngb thinks they could be important
Taff Jones notes
Caroline how much help did you give JB when you thought he was innocent?
There's lots you could have done ????
Maybe you could fight to get the information held under pii to be released to show JB is GUiLTY
Instead of sitting around every night with your finger over the ban button
It's like your permanently on a power trip
None of the other mods behave like you
Maybe that's what you should be doing instead of sitting here making snide remarks. Power trip? This is just an internet forum Jackie not The Pentagon ;D ;D ;D ;D
By the way, it shows what you know, Nevile's call is the one thing that would free Jeremy - it would prove that he was alive when Jeremy Called the police from Goldhanger.
-
Caroline I think the post to you is way out of order and totally uncalled for. Can't say I have seen much of you hitting the ban button think this is the first to my knowledge. ???
-
Caroline I think the post to you is way out of order and totally uncalled for. Can't say I have seen much of you hitting the ban button think this is the first to my knowledge. ???
It's a total of twice Susan and none indefinately. Jackie's got the hump again but I have come to expect it because she can't be civil - her problem!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You don't remember hitting the ban button yesterday
You must see a doctor about your memory
Try addressing my post!!!
So you and Susan are 100% guilty on this case
Well Jeremy will think that's a good thing
Not ever the jury were 100%
You and your sidekick are hilarious
-
Caroline don't think Jeremy Bamber will loose any sleep over what you and I think about him after all none of us on this forum are going to be part of changing what happens to him in the future.
-
You don't remember hitting the ban button yesterday
You must see a doctor about your memory
Try addressing my post!!!
So you and Susan are 100% guilty on this case
Well Jeremy will think that's a good thing
Not ever the jury were 100%
You and your sidekick are hilarious
Actually no one hit the ban button on you - it was connected to IP's which were triggered when Adam was banned but trust you to assume it was on purpose You're not that important Jackie, no conspiracy! Oh and twice included yesterday!
Perhaps you should try addressing the subject at hand and stop trying to orchestrate things round to whatever point you think fit. Power trip? I think it's you who feels they have some special role in this case but you're just another member.
I'm sure Jeremy doesn't care one way or another that Susan or I think he's guilty, after all, we just join the thousands others who think the same. Perhaps you should ask him ....... oh I forgot, he doesn't write to you anymore either.
Try answering the question at hand being as you never even attempt to answer any case related question but I guess you think you're above that.
Question was (just in case you forgot).
Say Neville did call the police ..... he called Jeremy at 03:10, if he called Bonnet at 03:26 what was he doing for the 16 minutes between calling Jeremy and calling Bonnet? Why is the information exactly the same as on Jeremy's log (different words used - same info), why was the line engaged when Jeremy tried to call back if Neville didn't call the police until 16 mins later and still engaged when West tried calling? Then of course there is the notion that the call was never mentioned to anyone - a call that proved that EP's initial take on the case was correct - Sheila was guilty and Jeremy was innocent. Why would this call be kept secret?
-
Caroline I think the post to you is way out of order and totally uncalled for. Can't say I have seen much of you hitting the ban button think this is the first to my knowledge. ???
How do you use the ignore button Susan or somebody use the ban button pleeeeeeeease.
-
Oh dear,not this nonsense again !
-
Actually no one hit the ban button on you - it was connected to IP's which were triggered when Adam was banned but trust you to assume it was on purpose You're not that important Jackie, no conspiracy! Oh and twice included yesterday!
Perhaps you should try addressing the subject at hand and stop trying to orchestrate things round to whatever point you think fit. Power trip? I think it's you who feels they have some special role in this case but you're just another member.
I'm sure Jeremy doesn't care one way or another that Susan or I think he's guilty, after all, we just join the thousands others who think the same. Perhaps you should ask him ....... oh I forgot, he doesn't write to you anymore either.
Try answering the question at hand being as you never even attempt to answer any case related question but I guess you think you're above that.
Question was (just in case you forgot).
Say Neville did call the police ..... he called Jeremy at 03:10, if he called Bonnet at 03:26 what was he doing for the 16 minutes between calling Jeremy and calling Bonnet? Why is the information exactly the same as on Jeremy's log (different words used - same info), why was the line engaged when Jeremy tried to call back if Neville didn't call the police until 16 mins later and still engaged when West tried calling? Then of course there is the notion that the call was never mentioned to anyone - a call that proved that EP's initial take on the case was correct - Sheila was guilty and Jeremy was innocent. Why would this call be kept secret?
So around 2 weeks ago you posted you were not sure Jeremy was guilty and now you are 100% he is guilty
Please fill us in what event has happened in the last couple of weeks to make you 100%
Your behaviour is ridiculous!! Jeremy must have seen right through you
As I have said you have NEVER achieved anything on this forum proving innocence or guilt
I am the only one to stand up and say it
You sit up every night tapping away on your computer for what exactly
-
same as the rest of us - because we are still trying to find that final bit of proof either way.
I have done things off the forum to try and help - but to be honest that takes a lot of guts because no one in their right mind could say about a man that is convicted and has had several unsuccessful appeals that you could be 100% sure he is innocent. So there is always a niggling doubt that you could be defending a child murderer.
However I do think that the EP SHOULD release all the info under PII . They should release what is in those 200 boxes .
they could be inspected by independent law students , one box each and they could sign something to say they would only release anything relevant to the defence team.
I find that their reasons for not doing so very suspicious.
IMO :)
-
So around 2 weeks ago you posted you were not sure Jeremy was guilty and now you are 100% he is guilty
Please fill us in what event has happened in the last couple of weeks to make you 100%
Your behaviour is ridiculous!! Jeremy must have seen right through you
As I have said you have NEVER achieved anything on this forum proving innocence or guilt
I am the only one to stand up and say it
You sit up every night tapping away on your computer for what exactly
Neither have you! But at least I try and think about the issues logically, you just bitch about Julie Muford and claim to have inside information on various issues. ;D ;D ;D
I can't see if you're standing up Jackie so you might as well have a seat ;D ;D
Why are you tapping on yours? You don't contribute anything at all - you don't even answer questions - probably because you can't but we'll try again. Now this is the question Jackie - with your extensive knowledge, you should be able to provide a pretty good answer that we can all agree with.
Say Neville did call the police ..... he called Jeremy at 03:10, if he called Bonnet at 03:26 what was he doing for the 16 minutes between calling Jeremy and calling Bonnet? Why is the information exactly the same as on Jeremy's log (different words used - same info), why was the line engaged when Jeremy tried to call back if Neville didn't call the police until 16 mins later and still engaged when West tried calling? Then of course there is the notion that the call was never mentioned to anyone - a call that proved that EP's initial take on the case was correct - Sheila was guilty and Jeremy was innocent. Why would this call be kept secret?
-
same as the rest of us - because we are still trying to find that final bit of proof either way.
I have done things off the forum to try and help - but to be honest that takes a lot of guts because no one in their right mind could say about a man that is convicted and has had several unsuccessful appeals that you could be 100% sure he is innocent. So there is always a niggling doubt that you could be defending a child murderer.
However I do think that the EP SHOULD release all the info under PII . They should release what is in those 200 boxes .
they could be inspected by independent law students , one box each and they could sign something to say they would only release anything relevant to the defence team.
I find that their reasons for not doing so very suspicious.
IMO :)
I agree, but Jackie doesn't know what anyone had done off forum - she just assumes so I will let her fester away thinking what she likes. ;D
-
Caroline
Why have you not replied to this
So around 2 weeks ago you posted you were not sure Jeremy was guilty and now you are 100% he is guilty
-
Caroline
Why have you not replied to this
So around 2 weeks ago you posted you were not sure Jeremy was guilty and now you are 100% he is guilty
Jackie, why have you not replied to this?
Say Neville did call the police ..... he called Jeremy at 03:10, if he called Bonnet at 03:26 what was he doing for the 16 minutes between calling Jeremy and calling Bonnet? Why is the information exactly the same as on Jeremy's log (different words used - same info), why was the line engaged when Jeremy tried to call back if Neville didn't call the police until 16 mins later and still engaged when West tried calling? Then of course there is the notion that the call was never mentioned to anyone - a call that proved that EP's initial take on the case was correct - Sheila was guilty and Jeremy was innocent. Why would this call be kept secret?
The topic is in reference to the timing of the phone calls, if you have nothing to contribute other than to harp on about my personal views, I suggest you find something more constructive to do. Take your personal grievances elsewhere, ideally, to the person you have them with. You don't know me, you just think you do and on that score (like many others) you are WRONG!
-
I have made it very clear on numerous times on this forum that unless the correct times of phone call is proved they mean nothing
Zilch!!
What I am concerned about is it looks like you have a personal vendetta against Jeremy
I am waiting for an answer on why you now believe Jeremy is now 100% guilty and a couple of weeks ago you said you were not sure
If his guilt depends on if he replies to you or not I feel very sad for you
I don't know if Jeremy is 100% innocent or not but I will stand by him 100% that there should be an appeal or retrial
He would walk, that I am sure
-
Caroline I was under the impression you have thought for quite awhile now that Jeremy Bamber was guilty maybe last year but only made your feelings about your change of stance a couple of months ago certainly longer than 2 weeks I have been at least 6 weeks with a change of stance and I detailed my feelings as to why I thought this on the forum this week to jansus you have posted reasons why you think he is GUILTY and you have been given so much respect from others for your honesty
-
Caroline I was under the impression you have thought for quite awhile now that Jeremy Bamber was guilty maybe last year but only made your feelings about your change of stance a couple of months ago certainly longer than 2 weeks I have been at least 6 weeks with a change of stance and I detailed my feelings as to why I thought this on the forum this week to jansus you have posted reasons why you think he is GUILTY and you have been given so much respect from others for your honesty
You are correct Susan!! After he dodged the wallet question it put doubt in my head. I discussed it with other members off the forum and mulled it over for about 6 months before discussing how he knew how much was in the wallet on the open forum. To be honest, the reaction of other members made me question whether people were interested in the truth or were just arguing for the sake of it. Once doubt enters your mind, it grows and all the things which I thought were suspicious (like the logs) weren't really suspicious at all - it was the slant that was put on them that made them seem that way. The time of the call to Bonnet isn't in dispute so the time of Wests call has to be before that (unless you believe that Neville called to Bonnet but then you have to account for 16 minutes). If you strip back all the opinion and speculation, you're left with the time and it doesn't add up.
To suggest I have a vendetta against Jeremy Bamber is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I'd argue the same if any other convicted killer (that I thought was guilty) was protesting his innocence. If guilty, he deserves to be where he is or perhaps Jackie thinks differently? I do think the silencer was faked and agree that anything held under PII should be released and have stated so many times - I also think that IF it can be proven that the silencer was faked, he should have a re-trial - which I have also said before (many times). However, even if the silencer was faked, it doesn't mean Jeremy is innocent. He put himself in the mix with the phone calls and unless he can prove Neville either called him or called police he won't get out.
This is an important aspect so rather than doing what she is is accusing me of (having a personal vendetta) perhaps she can put some effort into working out the evidence around the phone calls. Just a thought.
-
Caroline excellent post and I concur with all your points I have no vendetta against Jeremy Bamber he is a total stranger but I am interested that justice is served and if he was "fitted" up I believe this is because the police knew he was guilty but did not have evidence. He should have a retrial and the truth be told.
-
No sorry, there was a video produced by the CT that stated they weren't allowed to show the logs for legal reasons.
If you check, I think you'll find that those reasons no longer apply. However, I agree that the errors were minor and the time of 3:36 was the same in all versions. The differences served only to suggest that Pc West used a multipart pad.
Say Neville did call the police ..... he called Jeremy at 03:10, if he called Bonnet at 03:26 what was he doing for the 16 minutes between calling Jeremy and calling Bonnet?
Thank you for considering the possibility again. In doing so, you cannot assume that Nevill called Jeremy at 3:10am. That time was Jeremy's estimate, but we don't know what it was based on and it is uncorroborated. We know that some of Julie's flatmates said they didn't look at any clock when they were woken by Jeremy's call, so we can't assume that Jeremy noted the time straight away, especially as he has never said he did.
Why is the information exactly the same as on Jeremy's log (different words used - same info)?
Presumably what was initially written in the logs was kept short to save time. For example, Pc West later revealed some details that he hadn't logged. It's not surprising that Nevill said much the same thing to the police as to Jeremy.
why was the line engaged when Jeremy tried to call back if Neville didn't call the police until 16 mins later and still engaged when West tried calling?
The telephone handset was off-hook according to the operator, and so all attempts to dial the WHF number would have resulted in an engaged tone until such time as the handset was replaced. From Jeremy's description, Nevill cut the call off, but didn't leave the handset on-hook. That could have been because Nevill tried to make another call, but we don't know for certain.
Then of course there is the notion that the call was never mentioned to anyone - a call that proved that EP's initial take on the case was correct - Sheila was guilty and Jeremy was innocent. Why would this call be kept secret?
We don't know that it was kept secret initially. All we know is that Jeremy wasn't told about it. The police don't necessarily give out information freely when a possible crime report has occurred. One could equally ask why EP required a court order to release other logging by Malcolm Bonnett that they had previously denied the existence of. Even in what they eventually released, there was a mysterious absence of certain things that we know must have occurred.
If you prefer the view that just one call to the police was made, and that was by Jeremy, how do you explain that both Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett claim they contacted Witham so that a car could be sent?
-
You are correct Susan!! After he dodged the wallet question it put doubt in my head. I discussed it with other members off the forum and mulled it over for about 6 months before discussing how he knew how much was in the wallet on the open forum. To be honest, the reaction of other members made me question whether people were interested in the truth or were just arguing for the sake of it. Once doubt enters your mind, it grows and all the things which I thought were suspicious (like the logs) weren't really suspicious at all - it was the slant that was put on them that made them seem that way. The time of the call to Bonnet isn't in dispute so the time of Wests call has to be before that (unless you believe that Neville called to Bonnet but then you have to account for 16 minutes). If you strip back all the opinion and speculation, you're left with the time and it doesn't add up.
To suggest I have a vendetta against Jeremy Bamber is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I'd argue the same if any other convicted killer (that I thought was guilty) was protesting his innocence. If guilty, he deserves to be where he is or perhaps Jackie thinks differently? I do think the silencer was faked and agree that anything held under PII should be released and have stated so many times - I also think that IF it can be proven that the silencer was faked, he should have a re-trial - which I have also said before (many times). However, even if the silencer was faked, it doesn't mean Jeremy is innocent. He put himself in the mix with the phone calls and unless he can prove Neville either called him or called police he won't get out.
This is an important aspect so rather than doing what she is is accusing me of (having a personal vendetta) perhaps she can put some effort into working out the evidence around the phone calls. Just a thought.
I will find your post and repost it for everyone on the forum to see
Unless you have removed it
So how long are you saying you have known Jeremy is 100% guilty
-
I will find your post and repost it for everyone on the forum to see
Unless you have removed it
So how long are you saying you have known Jeremy is 100% guilty
Post what you like - I really don't care, I don't know what your problem is but you've got one. Answer questions about the case and stop stalking me - you're weirding me out! :o :o
-
You are correct Susan!! After he dodged the wallet question it put doubt in my head. I discussed it with other members off the forum and mulled it over for about 6 months before discussing how he knew how much was in the wallet on the open forum. To be honest, the reaction of other members made me question whether people were interested in the truth or were just arguing for the sake of it. Once doubt enters your mind, it grows and all the things which I thought were suspicious (like the logs) weren't really suspicious at all - it was the slant that was put on them that made them seem that way. The time of the call to Bonnet isn't in dispute so the time of Wests call has to be before that (unless you believe that Neville called to Bonnet but then you have to account for 16 minutes). If you strip back all the opinion and speculation, you're left with the time and it doesn't add up.
To suggest I have a vendetta against Jeremy Bamber is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I'd argue the same if any other convicted killer (that I thought was guilty) was protesting his innocence. If guilty, he deserves to be where he is or perhaps Jackie thinks differently? I do think the silencer was faked and agree that anything held under PII should be released and have stated so many times - I also think that IF it can be proven that the silencer was faked, he should have a re-trial - which I have also said before (many times). However, even if the silencer was faked, it doesn't mean Jeremy is innocent. He put himself in the mix with the phone calls and unless he can prove Neville either called him or called police he won't get out.
This is an important aspect so rather than doing what she is is accusing me of (having a personal vendetta) perhaps she can put some effort into working out the evidence around the phone calls. Just a thought.
It's clear that the personal vendetta isn't you Vs Jeremy but Jackie vs you/Susan. This is something she is well known for against people who don't believe Bamber is innocent.
If you're led by the evidence rather than anything else I don't see how it can be personal against Bamber. If she wishes to ignore evidence because she wants to and because she likes Bamber than that is her choice but it's not right or fair to accuse others who genuinely know the evidence,can see it right in front of them, have debated it, have shown a clear and comprehensive understanding of the case and still come to the conclusion that Bamber is guilty.
-
Caroline you suspected he was guilty last year and made it known on the forum during the past couple of months it isn't something you have just thought of it has been a combination of many little things most of which you have talked about. Because of the respect you have earned on this forum I fear some feel threatened by you which is sad as we are all entitled to our own opinions.
-
I have made it very clear on numerous times on this forum that unless the correct times of phone call is proved they mean nothing
Zilch!!
What I am concerned about is it looks like you have a personal vendetta against Jeremy
I am waiting for an answer on why you now believe Jeremy is now 100% guilty and a couple of weeks ago you said you were not sure
If his guilt depends on if he replies to you or not I feel very sad for you
I don't know if Jeremy is 100% innocent or not but I will stand by him 100% that there should be an appeal or retrial
He would walk, that I am sure
Not sure where you learned maths from but he can't be any less than 100% innocent, to be innocent. Why are you obsessed about him writing to me? I asked him a few questions and gave him a few ideas - we didn't discuss marriage ;D ;D ;D ;D. Although we can clear one thing up - if you don't believe that my name is really Caroline - perhaps you'll believe Jeremy? :P
-
My apologies for not drawing attention to it before, but car CA07 reached WHF at 3:48am according to Malcolm Bonnett, but at 3:50am according to Pc West. A later summary created by the police has this time as 3:50am. As we don't know which time is correct, we have to allow the possibility that 3:50am is correct. On that basis, Jeremy had about 8 minutes to make his way to WHF, which fits very nicely with Pc West's evidence, and car CA07 had an extra two minutes to attend the scene, making that journey more plausible as well.
-
It's clear that the personal vendetta isn't you Vs Jeremy but Jackie vs you/Susan. This is something she is well known for against people who don't believe Bamber is innocent.
If you're led by the evidence rather than anything else I don't see how it can be personal against Bamber. If she wishes to ignore evidence because she wants to and because she likes Bamber than that is her choice but it's not right or fair to accuse others who genuinely know the evidence,can see it right in front of them, have debated it, have shown a clear and comprehensive understanding of the case and still come to the conclusion that Bamber is guilty.
Thanks Mat, once you sweep away the BS, the mists begin to clear!!
-
If you check, I think you'll find that those reasons no longer apply. However, I agree that the errors were minor and the time of 3:36 was the same in all versions. The differences served only to suggest that Pc West used a multipart pad.
Thank you for considering the possibility again. In doing so, you cannot assume that Nevill called Jeremy at 3:10am. That time was Jeremy's estimate, but we don't know what it was based on and it is uncorroborated. We know that some of Julie's flatmates said they didn't look at any clock when they were woken by Jeremy's call, so we can't assume that Jeremy noted the time straight away, especially as he has never said he did.
Presumably what was initially written in the logs was kept short to save time. For example, Pc West later revealed some details that he hadn't logged. It's not surprising that Nevill said much the same thing to the police as to Jeremy.
The telephone handset was off-hook according to the operator, and so all attempts to dial the WHF number would have resulted in an engaged tone until such time as the handset was replaced. From Jeremy's description, Nevill cut the call off, but didn't leave the handset on-hook. That could have been because Nevill tried to make another call, but we don't know for certain.
We don't know that it was kept secret initially. All we know is that Jeremy wasn't told about it. The police don't necessarily give out information freely when a possible crime report has occurred. One could equally ask why EP required a court order to release other logging by Malcolm Bonnett that they had previously denied the existence of. Even in what they eventually released, there was a mysterious absence of certain things that we know must have occurred.
If you prefer the view that just one call to the police was made, and that was by Jeremy, how do you explain that both Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett claim they contacted Witham so that a car could be sent?
Sorry Reader, I'm not ignoring your post and I will answer it later. I have a monkey on my back at the moment and I need to shake it off! ;D ;D ;D
-
It's probably for the best that most of us wouldn't know each other from.......................... if we passed in the street so I fail to see how it becomes possible to make claims about people having vendettas.
IMO, it's no easy thing to find one's mind changing. It flies in the face of belief systems which have been held close and the ground on which one has been standing no longer feels quite as firm. It's probably much more comfortable to admit than to go on denying. I could give numerous reasons for doing this but the ultimate responsibility for it is my own. I can't lay the blame for it at others' feet. What starts with tiny, niggling doubts expands to the point where one's reasons for hanging onto the old belief are no more than futile excuses. Caroline and Susan should be commended for having the courage to talk about it.
-
What starts with tiny, niggling doubts expands to the point where one's reasons for hanging onto the old belief are no more than futile excuses.
April, I actually agree with this whole-heartedly. When I first changed my mind on the case it was because I had realised I had believed him innocent for so long that I was now just making excuses for the evidence and behaviour - as the end excuses and bullshit was all that I was left with.
-
April, I actually agree with this whole-heartedly. When I first changed my mind on the case it was because I had realised I had believed him innocent for so long that I was now just making excuses for the evidence and behaviour - as the end excuses and bullshit was all that I was left with.
Thanks for that, Matt, but please believe that I feel no sense of triumph over it. I do, however feel enormous relief.
-
Thanks for that, Matt, but please believe that I feel no sense of triumph over it. I do, however feel enormous relief.
My names Mat. Keep calling me Matt and I shall call you "May.". :D ;D
-
Not sure where you learned maths from but he can't be any less than 100% innocent, to be innocent. Why are you obsessed about him writing to me? I asked him a few questions and gave him a few ideas - we didn't discuss marriage ;D ;D ;D ;D. Although we can clear one thing up - if you don't believe that my name is really Caroline - perhaps you'll believe Jeremy? :P
I don't think I have ever disputed you call yourself Caroline
-
My names Mat. Keep calling me Matt and I shall call you "May.". :D ;D
MAT, I am SOOOOOOO sorry. You can call me anything you want as long as it isn't late for dinner :D :D
-
Ha Ha Caroline so funny I did not think you would discuss marriage ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't think I have ever disputed you call yourself Caroline
I do, it's on my birth certificate too and my passport and my bank details etc. So you still think I'm some old woman who used to spar with you on here back in the day? Where am I supposed to live Jackie? Because with a letter, there is also an envelope - would you like me to prove that I live in the North east? Would Jeremy's word suffice on that? Or will you just deny it and make more excuses because you don't have the bollocks to admit you're wrong?
-
Caroline if JP still thinks you are Keira she is the only one on Blue and Red wonder what her problem is?
-
Jackie, Caroline is not Keira! Not in a million years, don´t know where you got that one from?
-
It's probably for the best that most of us wouldn't know each other from.......................... if we passed in the street so I fail to see how it becomes possible to make claims about people having vendettas.
IMO, it's no easy thing to find one's mind changing. It flies in the face of belief systems which have been held close and the ground on which one has been standing no longer feels quite as firm. It's probably much more comfortable to admit than to go on denying. I could give numerous reasons for doing this but the ultimate responsibility for it is my own. I can't lay the blame for it at others' feet. What starts with tiny, niggling doubts expands to the point where one's reasons for hanging onto the old belief are no more than futile excuses. Caroline and Susan should be commended for having the courage to talk about it.
April you have so much respect on this forum
-
April you have so much respect on this forum
I prefer May, it's usually warmer and dryer. ;D
-
Not sure where you learned maths from but he can't be any less than 100% innocent, to be innocent. Why are you obsessed about him writing to me? I asked him a few questions and gave him a few ideas - we didn't discuss marriage ;D ;D ;D ;D. Although we can clear one thing up - if you don't believe that my name is really Caroline - perhaps you'll believe Jeremy? :P
Total respect Caroline for not showing the rest of that very personal letter with you and Jeremy.
-
I prefer May, it's usually warmer and dryer. ;D
June is better. 8)
-
Total respect Caroline for not showing the rest of that very personal letter with you and Jeremy.
Come again???
-
April you have so much respect on this forum
Justice, gosh, how very kind. You took my breath away :) :-*
-
June is better. 8)
:D
-
June is better. 8)
And hotter. Perhaps not to Harters' taste ;)
-
And hotter. Perhaps not to Harters' taste ;)
Hey I'm less than fussy. :)
-
Come again???
If Caroline had a vendetta with Jeremy she could show the personal letters between herself and him? This shows she has no vendetta to me?
-
If Caroline had a vendetta with Jeremy she could show the personal letters between herself and him? This shows she has no vendetta to me?
Why would she have a vendetta towards you? ???
-
If Caroline had a vendetta with Jeremy she could show the personal letters between herself and him? This shows she has no vendetta to me?
Oh, OK - thanks. :)
-
Well I can see that I have a fight on my hands now. ;D ;D ;D ;D Ever felt out on a limb ? :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
-
Hey I'm less than fussy. :)
And there was I thinking you were a man of taste ;)
-
Justice, gosh, how very kind. You took my breath away :) :-*
Don't like to say too much April my Susie might get jealous?
-
Why would she have a vendetta towards you? ???
Ha ha sorry Hartley, i thought we wasn't pulling up on grammar?
-
Ha ha sorry Hartley, i thought we wasn't pulling up on grammar?
My apologies. :-[ :-[ :-[
-
And there was I thinking you were a man of taste ;)
Ha I wish. :-[
-
Total respect Caroline for not showing the rest of that very personal letter with you and Jeremy.
Thanks Justice - simply used it to prove a point. Why she thinks I would use a false name to write to Jeremy I have no idea. I initially used the email service simply to send him best wishes after watching CTSB. I had no idea he would get my personal details and was a bit shocked when he replied. However, you have to supply you name and address when you write to a prisoner. If she still thinks I'm Keira, she should report me - I would love to see the look on her face when she gets charged for wasting police time and when the penny finally drops that she was wrong allllllllllllllllll this time - sweet!! ;D ;D ;D ;D.
-
Don't like to say too much April my Susie might get jealous?
I'm very discreet, Justice :)
-
The contents of phone log 3.26am, were not known to the defence at the time of the trial, only the time was mentioned...
In order for the full contents of phone log 3.26am to be introduced into evidence, it would have required submission of legal argument because, if the caller to the police had really been Jeremy, what is recorded there was told to the author, by someone who recieved a massage from Jeremy, about what the father had said to Jeremy - which amounts to a clear case of HEARSAY...
On the other hand, if Ralph made the call (3.26am), the contents of phone log 3.26am provide Jeremy with the perfect ALIBI...
-
Justice your susie would get jealous I am tracking you across the forum and keeping a close eye on you. Don Juan will become your new username ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The contents of phone log 3.26am, were not known to the defence at the time of the trial, only the time was mentioned...
In order for the full contents of phone log 3.26am to be introduced into evidence, it would have required submission of legal argument because, if the caller to the police had really been Jeremy, what is recorded there was told to the author, by someone who recieved a massage from Jeremy, about what the father had said to Jeremy - which amounts to a clear case of HEARSAY...
On the other hand, if Ralph made the call (3.26am), the contents of phone log 3.26am provide Jeremy with the perfect ALIBI...
prosecution couldn't run the risk of disclosing the full contents of phone log 3.26am, because the case against Jeremy could well have collapsed after disclosure...
-
Whether the contents of phone log 3.26am, amount to HEARSAY, or provided Jeremy with an ALIBI, one thing is certain, and that is that there were no submissions or legal arguments made during the course of the trial, which beggars belief if the contents if the 3.26am lig had been disclosed, or were known about at that time...
-
Whether the contents of phone log 3.26am, amount to HEARSAY, or provided Jeremy with an ALIBI, one thing is certain, and that is that there were no submissions or legal arguments made during the course of the trial, which beggars belief if the contents if the 3.26am lig had been disclosed, or were known about at that time...
Jeremy's own campaign site state that the 03:26 log was the log the jury saw.
-
Only the jurors know what they saw. The best anyone else could conceivably know is what documents were made available to the jury.
-
Only the jurors know what they saw. The best anyone else could conceivably know is what documents were made available to the jury.
That's not true court officials , the defense, the prosecution and the judge will know what they saw. You're arguing against Jeremy's own version to make the pieces fit.
-
The jurors deliberate in private, so unless they submit a comment or question about a particular document available to them, nobody else knows whether they've seen it.
The CT website is sometimes inaccurate.
-
The jurors deliberate in private, so unless they submit a comment or question about a particular document available to them, nobody else knows whether they've seen it.
The CT website is sometimes inaccurate.
You seem to be in denial because it doesn't fit with the conspiracy. On an issue such as this, I'm sure they know exactly which log was shown to the jury - Bonnet's log.
-
Documents aren't "shown to the jury". They are passed to the jury, and then the jurors decide what they will do with them.
-
Documents aren't "shown to the jury". They are passed to the jury, and then the jurors decide what they will do with them.
You seem intent on making a conspiracy out of an issue which is clearly stated on the OS. Don't know what to tell you ???
-
Documents aren't "shown to the jury". They are passed to the jury, and then the jurors decide what they will do with them.
Reader, please forgive me, but having read what you've been saying over the past 24 (ish) hours, it occurs to me that the bottom of the barrel that you're scraping could be getting precariously thin
-
Reader, please forgive me, but having read what you've been saying over the past 24 (ish) hours, it occurs to me that the bottom of the barrel that you're scraping could be getting precariously thin
Dear Lyla, dear Lyla ;D ;D
-
Dear Lyla, dear Lyla ;D ;D
Heheheheheheheheheheeeeeeeeeeee :D Thas a owl int thar bookit. Did I get the accent right?
-
an'ole----------not a owl. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Heheheheheheheheheheeeeeeeeeeee :D Thas a owl int thar bookit. Did I get the accent right?
Not quite ;D more like "thez a howl n'me bukut" ;D ;D ;D
-
Is it Liza or Lyla?
-
Liza. ;D and 'enrey
-
Is it Liza or Lyla?
I've always known it as Liza.......................but I like Lyla better ;D ;D ;D
-
Whether the contents of phone log 3.26am, amount to HEARSAY, or provided Jeremy with an ALIBI, one thing is certain, and that is that there were no submissions or legal arguments made during the course of the trial, which beggars belief if the contents if the 3.26am lig had been disclosed, or were known about at that time...
As Caroline points out Bonnett's log was used at trial. Far from the contents of all the logs establishing an alibi for Jeremy they simply detial the same things police said at trial.
The logs don't provide any basis to suggest let alone establish that Nevill spoke to Bonnett. Indeed your claim is that the log was doctored though you have no proof to support your claim.
You don't seem to have any follow through, you just change the subject when someone confronts you. It's like playing whack a mole. The same moles pop up in the future periodically. You need new moles it is getting boring.
-
Actually no one hit the ban button on you - it was connected to IP's which were triggered when Adam was banned but trust you to assume it was on purpose You're not that important Jackie, no conspiracy! Oh and twice included yesterday!
Perhaps you should try addressing the subject at hand and stop trying to orchestrate things round to whatever point you think fit. Power trip? I think it's you who feels they have some special role in this case but you're just another member.
I'm sure Jeremy doesn't care one way or another that Susan or I think he's guilty, after all, we just join the thousands others who think the same. Perhaps you should ask him ....... oh I forgot, he doesn't write to you anymore either.
Try answering the question at hand being as you never even attempt to answer any case related question but I guess you think you're above that.
Question was (just in case you forgot).
Say Neville did call the police ..... he called Jeremy at 03:10, if he called Bonnet at 03:26 what was he doing for the 16 minutes between calling Jeremy and calling Bonnet? Why is the information exactly the same as on Jeremy's log (different words used - same info), why was the line engaged when Jeremy tried to call back if Neville didn't call the police until 16 mins later and still engaged when West tried calling? Then of course there is the notion that the call was never mentioned to anyone - a call that proved that EP's initial take on the case was correct - Sheila was guilty and Jeremy was innocent. Why would this call be kept secret?
Caroline can you explain what you mean by thousands?
Where did you get this figure from exactly?
You are a moderator on a forum and you are trying to mislead people who view this forum
You are exactly the same as Skippy and Adam with misleading information
-
Caroline can you explain what you mean by thousands?
Where did you get this figure from exactly?
You are a moderator on a forum and you are trying to mislead people who view this forum
You are exactly the same as Skippy and Adam with misleading information
There are many millions who believe he is guilty so I guess you are right about her being sloppy with her estimate.
-
There are many millions who believe he is guilty so I guess you are right about her being sloppy with her estimate.
I'd be VERY surprised if, by now, there were HUNDREDS of thousands, let alone millions, so it could be that there are two of you who are estimate sloppy.
-
There are many millions who believe he is guilty so I guess you are right about her being sloppy with her estimate.
Another ridiculous statement
Where is your or Carolines source for thousands or millions
-
Thank you April
Its the story of Jeremys life making 'stuff' up
-
i would guess most people do as no opinion poll has every done its imposable to say ethere.
i was actully suprised how many actives supporters he had when i first started reading about the case.
when someones convicted of crime most people will just assume they did it but when they know the facts of case they may be less certain.
-
There isn't exactly massive public outrage when it comes to the Bamber case. This is a Bamber forum and there are only 10/15 people posting in his defence.
-
Thank you April
Its the story of Jeremys life making 'stuff' up
Jackie, I fear that this is groveling apology time to Caroline because I had thought it was Scipio's, IMO, rather over expansive "millions" that I was doubting more than the possibility of her "thousands."
I am MORE inclined to believe that Jeremy is guilty but have long noticed that there are aspects of this case which remain the same whether Jeremy is innocent or guilty. They have different meanings according to how one sees Jeremy. What infuriates me -and this is what prompted me to respond to Scipio's post- is seeing people attempting to make him MORE than guilty, ie suggesting that MILLIONS believe it so. Perhaps it's more about point scoring -Scipio LOVES to argue so maybe as long as he believes he's won, the topic isn't important- he even seems to disagree with some of those who support his belief in Jeremy's guilt. It appears Jeremy isn't guilty unless one shares in Scipio's version of guilt.
-
There isn't exactly massive public outrage when it comes to the Bamber case. This is a Bamber forum and there are only 10/15 people posting in his defence.
not every body show there outrage about something by posting on a forum of those do not all of them would want to necessarily post on this forum.
fialing to post on this forum is not a sighn of belief in guilt its just its just a sighn of sanity.
-
not every body show there outrage about something by posting on a forum of those do not all of them would want to necessarily post on this forum.
fialing to post on this forum is not a sighn of belief in guilt its just its just a sighn of sanity.
Point being, there is no outrage. Unless you can point me to it? Fundraisers? Awareness days? Anything?
-
you dont see george gallaway and Andrew hunter and poppy miller posting on here scot lomax dosent its lardgley because they have better things to do.
some people dont see how posting on a forum actually helps anyone or changes anything that's why they dont do it.
most of people who are actually helping him dont post her because there not busy actually helping him with his case.
for no money i might add.
-
Hello nugnug posting on forums will not help Jeremy Bamber in any shape or form all it does his make people aware of the documented facts so they can draw their own conclusions as to whether or not a MOJ has occurred.I suspect it is thought by many that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of the murders of his family but he was stiched up by EP because they knew him to be guilty but had not got any evidence to prove it.
-
you dont see george gallaway and Andrew hunter and poppy miller posting on here scot lomax dosent its lardgley because they have better things to do.
some people dont see how posting on a forum actually helps anyone or changes anything that's why they dont do it.
most of people who are actually helping him dont post her because there not busy actually helping him with his case.
for no money i might add.
I'm not talking about forums.
Show me George's comments on Bamber?
-
Hello nugnug posting on forums will not help Jeremy Bamber in any shape or form all it does his make people aware of the documented facts so they can draw their own conclusions as to whether or not a MOJ has occurred.I suspect it is thought by many that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of the murders of his family but he was stiched up by EP because they knew him to be guilty but had not got any evidence to prove it.
i would most people born after 1980 would say whos Jeremy bamber.
-
Point being, there is no outrage. Unless you can point me to it? Fundraisers? Awareness days? Anything?
There's been a number of people on the forum who have changed their stance from innocent to guilty, the first person I noticed way back was Andrea.
I can't recall a single person on the forum doing the reverse.
Outside of the forums it is quite likely that thousands of people do believe he is guilty, due to the various news reports over the years, although the vast majority haven't studied the case in any detail and therefore have little information to support their views.
There are actually many of my friends and family who hadn't even heard of the case at all, and there are many more who have heard of the case but don't actually have an opinion on it, they don't care.
Personally I can't see what difference it makes either way. :-\
-
i did the reverse look at my early posts.
-
i did the reverse look at my early posts.
You are renowned though for believing EVERYONE is innocent! You spend a lot of time aruging for people in prison on different forums :-\... Simon Hall... Luke Mitchell...
In fact, when you believe someone is innocent it's usually a good indicator they are actually guilty.
-
read my first posts you can see when i came here i thought he was guilty.
theres one case where im certan of guilty thats the case that most insist isnt discused here for some reason.
-
Hello harters I agree it makes no difference whatsoever whether Jeremy Bamber has a big following or not it will not change the outcome of his fate only new evidence will do that.
-
i did the reverse look at my early posts.
Yeah maybe, but you joined on 04/04/2011, first posted on 08/04/2011 and claimed that by the 21/04/2011 that you were no longer sure of his guilt.
So I'm ignoring your first 17 days. :D
-
its a bigger following that most people convicted most of murder get but then size of the support group doesnt make somone innocent or guilty.
-
Harters you are so naughty but very good on digging for facts ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Harters you are so naughty but very good on digging for facts ;D ;D ;D ;D
Sorry. :-[ ;D
-
Yeah maybe, but you joined on 04/04/2011, first posted on 08/04/2011 and claimed that by the 21/04/2011 that you were no longer sure of his guilt.
So I'm ignoring your first 17 days. :D
no longer sure of guilt and thinking somones innocent are 2 diffrent things.
-
no longer sure of guilt and thinking somones innocent are 2 diffrent things.
Oh lighten up, I'm just kidding around. :P
-
Caroline can you explain what you mean by thousands?
Where did you get this figure from exactly?
You are a moderator on a forum and you are trying to mislead people who view this forum
You are exactly the same as Skippy and Adam with misleading information
Yes, Jackie, if you start counting from one up to 999, the next number is 1000, you can then multiply that number by say 2, or 5 or even 10 and then you end up with thousands. ;)
I'm not misleading anyone ;D, but perhaps you might like to think about your tactics while you're pointing fingers at other people. It seems your sole purpose for being here is to launch some stupid attack on me wherever possible. It doesn't bother me, in fact I find it amusing. But I stand by what I said 'thousands' of people will believe Jeremy to be guilty. I see no massive public outcry referring to a MOJ or we would be inundate with members.
-
well there wont be theirs no massive outcry untill someones actually cleared.
-
Yes, Jackie, if you start counting from one up to 999, the next number is 1000, you can then multiply that number by say 2, or 5 or even 10 and then you end up with thousands. ;)
I'm not misleading anyone ;D, but perhaps you might like to think about your tactics while you're pointing fingers at other people. It seems your sole purpose for being here is to launch some stupid attack on me wherever possible. It doesn't bother me, in fact I find it amusing. But I stand by what I said 'thousands' of people will believe Jeremy to be guilty. I see no massive public outcry referring to a MOJ or we would be inundate with members.
Try quoting facts and stopping being rude because this must be the only power you have
-
Sorry. :-[ ;D
Have you posted on the Peter Eaton thread yet?
-
well there wont be theirs no massive outcry untill someones actually cleared.
So, until it is shown that there has been a MOJ, the person is assumed guilty the majority - which would amount to 'thousand' - I can believe I'm even arguing the toss on this. Thousands of people will believe he is guilty and thousands may not. Jackie is simply picking at things I say so goad. ::)
-
Have you posted on the Peter Eaton thread yet?
I'm not sure. :-\ Why don't you have a look? ???
-
So, until it is shown that there has been a MOJ, the person is assumed guilty by the majority - which would amount to 'thousand' - I can't believe I'm even arguing the toss on this. Thousands of people will believe he is guilty and thousands may not. Jackie is simply picking at things I say so goad. ::)
I can't!!! ;D
-
Hello Caroline
I have noticed that Jackie's main purpose on this forum is to attack you and harters but mostly you think she feels intimated by your stance on the forum because you are changing the stance of some of us with your excellent posts. Keep it up.
-
I can't!!! ;D
Bloody keyboard!! ;D ;D
-
Hello Caroline
I have noticed that Jackie's main purpose on this forum is to attack you and harters but mostly you think she feels intimated by your stance on the forum because you are changing the stance of some of us with your excellent posts. Keep it up.
What an excellent post Susan, very concise. :)
-
Hello Caroline
I have noticed that Jackie's main purpose on this forum is to attack you and harters but mostly you think she feels intimated by your stance on the forum because you are changing the stance of some of us with your excellent posts. Keep it up.
Thanks Susan :). It's not my intention to change anyone's mind but just to explain things as I see them. People don't have to agree but it would be nice if they were able to debate with a bit of dignity instead of resorting to snide remarks and personal insults. People go one about Scipio but Jackie is just as personal.
-
I see Jackie as the same kind that writes to Ian Huntley, the yorkshire ripper, Charles Manson, Charles Bronson.... middle aged (at best) single women who seem to see their contact with the someone inside as a badge of pride.
The only difference is that Jackie can hide behind the fact that Bamber claims innocence in order for her contact not to seem as strange as it acutally is. I'm unsure if they truly believes in innocence, or simply doesn't care because I've never seen her post any form of understanding on any aspect of the case.
It seems she uses it as a sort of social status.
-
I see Jackie as the same kind that writes to Ian Huntley, the yorkshire ripper, Charles Manson, Charles Bronson.... middle aged (at best) single women who seem to see their contact with the someone inside as a badge of pride.
The only difference is that Jackie can hide behind the fact that Bamber claims innocence in order for her contact not to seem as strange as it acutally is. I'm unsure if they truly believes in innocence, or simply doesn't care because I've never seen her post any form of understanding on any aspect of the case.
It seems she uses it as a sort of social status.
Another very good post, it seems clarity is in the air today. :)
-
Caroline I had doubts about him being innocent months ago and your posts helped to confirmed my doubts along with some of harters posts I notice Jackie is always telling Scipio and Adam that their posts are rubbish but none of the posters who think he is guilty resort to such rudeness no need for it we are all grown up and should be able to debate in a civilised manner and remain dignified. I have noticed that the odd post Jackie posts about the case are received on the forum in a pleasant manner by other members.
-
I see Jackie as the same kind that writes to Ian Huntley, the yorkshire ripper, Charles Manson, Charles Bronson.... middle aged (at best) single women who seem to see their contact with the someone inside as a badge of pride.
The only difference is that Jackie can hide behind the fact that Bamber claims innocence in order for her contact not to seem as strange as it acutally is. I'm unsure if they truly believes in innocence, or simply doesn't care because I've never seen her post any form of understanding on any aspect of the case.
It seems she uses it as a sort of social status.
and your all complaining about her making personal coments the words pot kettele and black springs to mind.
-
Caroline I had doubts about him being innocent months ago and your posts helped to confirmed my doubts along with some of harters posts I notice Jackie is always telling Scipio and Adam that their posts are rubbish but none of the posters who think he is guilty resort to such rudeness no need for it we are all grown up and should be able to debate in a civilised manner and remain dignified. I have noticed that the odd post Jackie posts about the case are received on the forum in a pleasant manner by other members.
The problem is that she can't back up her claims tha tour posts are rubbish. She makes claims unsupported claims. I don't care about the rude factor but simply that she is making bogus dismissals.
I don't just say she or Mike or whoever is wrong I discuss how and why and refer to the evidence that establishes such.
As a practical matter Jackie's knowledge of the facts of the case is absolutely pitiful. It is astonishing someone can be so involved and not be aware of the most basic facts.
-
Thanks Nugs
Skip, Adam, Mat, Caroline, Susan are all one of a kind
The forum isn't a popularity contest and if I was the last one on this forum who believed Jeremy was innocent I wouldn't care. If I believe there has been a great injustice I will fight for things to be put right
As most people know I have over 2000 followers on twitter of mainly legal people and news people and they are certainly NOT of the same opinion of Caroline and her mob
I don't even know Jeremy that well but I have done more research on him than anyone that believes he is guilty
The facts are
He loved farming
He loved his family
He loved his life
He got on well with his sister
He has no history of violence
He had no money worries
Just an ordinary young man
There's a lot more to come out in this case, I know that for sure
-
I see Jackie as the same kind that writes to Ian Huntley, the yorkshire ripper, Charles Manson, Charles Bronson.... middle aged (at best) single women who seem to see their contact with the someone inside as a badge of pride.
The only difference is that Jackie can hide behind the fact that Bamber claims innocence in order for her contact not to seem as strange as it acutally is. I'm unsure if they truly believes in innocence, or simply doesn't care because I've never seen her post any form of understanding on any aspect of the case.
It seems she uses it as a sort of social status.
Mat - I think that is a very personal post - my parents always taught me two wrongs don't make a right.
-
Mat - I think that is a very personal post - my parents always taught me two wrongs don't make a right.
Mat likes the drama - just an observation. :P
-
Mat - I think that is a very personal post - my parents always taught me two wrongs don't make a right.
Mat sent me a threatening pm the first day he was on the forum so I am used to his behaviour
-
Jackie even when I was posting on this forum as Jeremy Bamber innocent I could never please you and the reason being personal on your part as I was a great friend of Bridget's and you were not due to issues off the forum which you constantly brought on to the forum and now it would appear because I now think he is guilty I should not be described as being part of anyone's mob. I have never been disrespectful to you in any shape or form and really cannot understand your attitude toward me but I can live with it as I am not on here to become popular but just to talk about the case and remain respectful to all parties.
-
Mat sent me a threatening pm the first day he was on the forum so I am used to his behaviour
He didn't send me one,but I too am used to his behaviour. Something wrong with folk like that.I've actually nursed them !! It's known as being paranoid.
-
Thanks Nugs
Skip, Adam, Mat, Caroline, Susan are all one of a kind
The forum isn't a popularity contest and if I was the last one on this forum who believed Jeremy was innocent I wouldn't care. If I believe there has been a great injustice I will fight for things to be put right
As most people know I have over 2000 followers on twitter of mainly legal people and news people and they are certainly NOT of the same opinion of Caroline and her mob
I don't even know Jeremy that well but I have done more research on him than anyone that believes he is guilty
The facts are
He loved farming
He loved his family
He loved his life
He got on well with his sister
He has no history of violence
He had no money worries
Just an ordinary young man
There's a lot more to come out in this case, I know that for sure
Out of interest who do you define as 'legal people.' Do you mean by this solicitors? barristers? judges?paralegals? legal execs? students? legal secretaries?
I have spoken to numerous colleagues and associates throughout the legal profession, including criminal practitioners. Firstly, very few have the time available to get to the requisite level of understanding to give an informed opinion regarding jb's guilt or innocence. Secondly, the vast majority of those who proffer an opinion lean towards guilt.
However, the common argument used is that although there is a belief that jb is guilty, whether the prosecution reached sufficient level of proof for guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is very much up for debate.
-
No judges, solicitors, barristers and loads of law students and probably every newspaper
Where are you on this Petey?
-
Out of interest who do you define as 'legal people.' Do you mean by this solicitors? barristers? judges?paralegals? legal execs? students? legal secretaries?
I have spoken to numerous colleagues and associates throughout the legal profession, including criminal practitioners. Firstly, very few have the time available to get to the requisite level of understanding to give an informed opinion regarding jb's guilt or innocence. Secondly, the vast majority of those who proffer an opinion lean towards guilt.
However, the common argument used is that although there is a belief that jb is guilty, whether the prosecution reached sufficient level of proof for guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is very much up for debate.
Hence the reason that after 30 years the case is STILL, by the interested few, hotly debated.
-
No judges, solicitors, barristers and loads of law students and probably every newspaper
Where are you on this Petey?
To be fair I probably don't know the case in sufficient detail to give an informed decision as there are so many documents / witness statements I haven't had access to or haven't had time to read.
When I first covered the case during my law degree I though he was innocent and when I first joined this forum I prob thought him about 70% innocent.
As time has passed my belief in his innocence has diminished and I say with the caveat that I haven't seen anywhere near enough documents to give an informed opinion, that I am now erring slightly towards guilt.
Notwithstanding this, the investigation was flawed, jb's initial defence team let him down and from what I have seen I'm not convinced the prosecution reached the required threshold to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
However, I also haven't seen anything credible on this forum or heard of anything credible to overturn his conviction.
-
when lawyers offer to work for nothing on a case they must be pretty convinced of innocence.
-
when lawyers offer to work for nothing on a case they must be pretty convinced of innocence.
That is simply not true
-
there working pro bono theyve all said.
how much money could they be making doing something else if they wernt doing it
you dont do that unless you belive in what your doing.
-
to be fair they can chose their pro-bono work - so they may have taken it on as it is probably one of the biggest challenges they will ever get.
-
To be fair I probably don't know the case in sufficient detail to give an informed decision as there are so many documents / witness statements I haven't had access to or haven't had time to read.
When I first covered the case during my law degree I though he was innocent and when I first joined this forum I prob thought him about 70% innocent.
As time has passed my belief in his innocence has diminished and I say with the caveat that I haven't seen anywhere near enough documents to give an informed opinion, that I am now erring slightly towards guilt.
Notwithstanding this, the investigation was flawed, jb's initial defence team let him down and from what I have seen I'm not convinced the prosecution reached the required threshold to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
However, I also haven't seen anything credible on this forum or heard of anything credible to overturn his conviction.
Which documents you have read make you err towards guilty
-
to be fair they can chose their pro-bono work - so they may have taken it on as it is probably one of the biggest challenges they will ever get.
exactly you can chose so your not obliged to help somone you think is guilty.
-
Mat - I think that is a very personal post - my parents always taught me two wrongs don't make a right.
It's just an opinion. I'm sure you'd hold her in a low regard if she'd ever managed to access your personal details too.
He didn't send me one,but I too am used to his behaviour. Something wrong with folk like that.I've actually nursed them !! It's known as being paranoid.
Paranoid? :o I've nothing to be paranoid over, Lookout. Not sure what "folk like that" you've nursed but with the way you speak about people I doubt you've ever been in a position to actually nurse anyone.
Mat sent me a threatening pm the first day he was on the forum so I am used to his behaviour
I told you to piss off accusing me of being Ann Eaton and John Lamberton and that you were a freak! Because from the moment I joined you and Grahame were obsessed I was a paid member of the family. As for threatening, you were asked to produce it by the mods and as usual you were lying.
-
to be fair they can chose their pro-bono work - so they may have taken it on as it is probably one of the biggest challenges they will ever get.
You take on a high profile case pro bono for the free publicity.
-
so how come nobody's ever heard of most of them.
-
That is simply not true
Not even in this case I suspect.
-
Mat - I think that is a very personal post - my parents always taught me two wrongs don't make a right.
At least you appear to recognise the first wrong.
To be fair to Mat, he's simply offered his opinion, and I must admit, it's kinda difficult to find a fault with it. :-\
-
Try quoting facts and stopping being rude because this must be the only power you have
I will be as rude to you as you are to me. Unlike you, I don't need any power - I'm not the one pretending to hold confidential info and if I did, I wouldn't be bragging about it on here. Practice what you preach!
-
I will be as rude to you as you are to me. Unlike you, I don't need any power - I'm not the one pretending to hold confidential info and if I did, I wouldn't be bragging about it on here. Practice what you preach!
Forget confidential info she is not even aware of the information in the public domain most of which is posted on this website. What she knowns about the releavant facts seems to be nil.
-
Forget confidential info she is not even aware of the information in the public domain most of which is posted on this website. What she knowns about the releavant facts seems to be nil.
I did just say 'claims' - I've yet to see her answer any question put to her. She just chants the mantra that 'He loved farming' blah, blah - blah, blah!!
-
Thanks Nugs
Skip, Adam, Mat, Caroline, Susan are all one of a kind
The forum isn't a popularity contest and if I was the last one on this forum who believed Jeremy was innocent I wouldn't care. If I believe there has been a great injustice I will fight for things to be put right
As most people know I have over 2000 followers on twitter of mainly legal people and news people and they are certainly NOT of the same opinion of Caroline and her mob
I don't even know Jeremy that well but I have done more research on him than anyone that believes he is guilty
The facts are
He loved farming
He loved his family
He loved his life
He got on well with his sister
He has no history of violence
He had no money worries
Just an ordinary young man
There's a lot more to come out in this case, I know that for sure
Humph! >:(
Speaking of popularity, how come I didn't get a mention? :'( :( :'(
-
Humph! >:(
Speaking of popularity, how come I didn't get a mention? :'( :( :'(
Since her facts are so clearly made up and baseless I would not worry about her lack of listing you among her foes.
While she wants blind followers I don't, I want people to agree with me because of sound arguments and evidence not because of ignorance or irrationality.
-
Humph! >:(
Speaking of popularity, how come I didn't get a mention? :'( :( :'(
Awwww there there :) :-*
-
Thanks Nugs
Skip, Adam, Mat, Caroline, Susan are all one of a kind
The forum isn't a popularity contest and if I was the last one on this forum who believed Jeremy was innocent I wouldn't care. If I believe there has been a great injustice I will fight for things to be put right
As most people know I have over 2000 followers on twitter of mainly legal people and news people and they are certainly NOT of the same opinion of Caroline and her mob
I don't even know Jeremy that well but I have done more research on him than anyone that believes he is guilty
The facts are
He loved farming
He loved his family
He loved his life
He got on well with his sister
He has no history of violence
He had no money worries
Just an ordinary young man
There's a lot more to come out in this case, I know that for sure
Not interested in popularity but "I have over 2000 followers on twitter" - So what?
How do you know how much research people have done? You're just making assumptions and false statements. You can't even answer basic questions - you just agree with supporters or call anyone who thinks he's guilty 'stupid'. People are allowed to have their own opinions without having you try to bully them. Sure Scipio is rude, but no more rude than you. I find you quite sinister - you hold a grudge just because someone thinks man already convicted of murder is guilty and you take it as a personal slight - I find that weird in the extreme. Your attitude certainly doesn't help his cause!
-
Humph! >:(
Speaking of popularity, how come I didn't get a mention? :'( :( :'(
I think you're filed under "Mob". ;D
-
I think you're filed under "Mob". ;D
Lol ;D
-
Not interested in popularity but "I have over 2000 followers on twitter" - So what?
How do you know how much research people have done? You're just making assumptions and false statements. You can't even answer basic questions - you just agree with supporters or call anyone who thinks he's guilty 'stupid'. People are allowed to have their own opinions without having you try to bully them. Sure Scipio is rude, but no more rude than you. I find you quite sinister - you hold a grudge just because someone thinks man already convicted of murder is guilty and you take it as a personal slight - I find that weird in the extreme. Your attitude certainly doesn't help his cause!
Yes, I did laugh at that. ::)
-
Mat you and I are in the "mob" sure it was an oversight leaving harters out unless she thinks he is changing his stance ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I think you're filed under "Mob". ;D
I've never had a mob before - Oh the power!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I've never had a mob before - Oh the power!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
High praise indeed. Queen Victoria referred to her rellies as "The Royal Mob"
-
It's hard not to be personal when Jackie takes anything against Bamber as a PERSONAL attack on HER and responds in kind. :-\
Am slightly annoyed at Alias' posts that I enjoy the drama. Certainly won't be responding to her again.
-
I've never had a mob before - Oh the power!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh the irony is more like it. Mob mentality means mass action based on ignorance. That is what Jackie is doing. She has proven that she is extreely ignorant of the facts of this case and operationg simply based on mob mentality and hoping to get others o join her. That is what she supposedly did for Jeremy- recruit others for her mob.
Yet she is accusing those who assert he is guilty based on evidence as being the mob. Projection as it its finest.
-
Mat I have never considered you a person who posts anything because you enjoy the drama you respond in an open manner and are very polite if this is shown to you. Outwith that you fight fire with fire which is a normal reaction. I am sure Alias did not mean it as you have understood it to be.
-
Mat I have never considered you a person who posts anything because you enjoy the drama you respond in an open manner and are very polite if this is shown to you. Outwith that you fight fire with fire which is a normal reaction. I am sure Alias did not mean it as you have understood it to be.
Thanks Susan ;D I have terrible toothache at the moment and a long wait for my dentist appointment so I am probably just grouchy. ;D
-
It's hard not to be personal when Jackie takes anything against Bamber as a PERSONAL attack on HER and responds in kind. :-\
Am slightly annoyed at Alias' posts that I enjoy the drama. Certainly won't be responding to her again.
That´s a shame.
-
Mat poor you nothing worse than toothache take loads of codeine well not too many ;D
-
Thanks Susan ;D I have terrible toothache at the moment and a long wait for my dentist appointment so I am probably just grouchy. ;D
Ouch! Have you tried oil of clove?
-
Ouch! Have you tried oil of clove?
You're the second person from here to suggest that to me, so I think I need to! ;D
-
Thanks Susan ;D I have terrible toothache at the moment and a long wait for my dentist appointment so I am probably just grouchy. ;D
Be better soon!
-
You're the second person from here to suggest that to me, so I think I need to! ;D
But be warned. Less is definitely more!!!!!
-
But be warned. Less is definitely more!!!!!
That's true and don't put it on a plastic or polished surface!! :o ;D ;D
-
As Caroline points out Bonnett's log was used at trial.
Bonnett's log was not mentioned at trial. Had the defence seen it at or before trial, they would have questioned it. As there is a copy of it with an exhibit label attached, it's possible that the defence had been given it, but overlooked it. There is no proof that a copy of it was in the jury bundle.
-
Bonnett's log was not mentioned at trial. Had the defence seen it at or before trial, they would have questioned it. As there is a copy of it with an exhibit label attached, it's possible that the defence had been given it, but overlooked it. There is no proof that a copy of it was in the jury bundle.
Both sides have access to the trial exhibits. Just like they know all potential witnesses that each side can call and a summary of what the testimony would be about.. There is no way to say the defense did not have the opportunity to reveiw the exhibits they have every right to do so in advance. It makes no difference if either side ends up not claling attention to an exhibit before the jury or having a witness end up testifying both sides know anyway what those exhibits were and the potential witnesses.
There is no way at all to pretend that the log was hidden from the defense. The defense surely looked at it but relaized there is nothing about it that oculd be used to support the notion that Nevill made a call. Indeed all those who suggest it proves such insist it was doctored to reflect the log is recounting Jeremy's allegations about what Nevill said to him though it originally was coming directly from Nevill.
Far from the trial team having information hidden from them, it is the case of people with wild imaginations who are desperately trying to find a way to pretend Jeremy is innocent making wild allegations without any supporting evidence.
-
I didn't suggest that Bennett's log was hidden from the defence. As the defence knew there was a dispute over the time of Jeremy's call to Pc West, and questioned Pc West about various aspects of his log, I am sure they would have wanted to question Bonnett about his log had they seen it. As the defence were given a large number of documents, one can't assume that they read all of them.
-
I didn't suggest that Bennett's log was hidden from the defence. As the defence knew there was a dispute over the time of Jeremy's call to Pc West, and questioned Pc West about various aspects of his log, I am sure they would have wanted to question Bonnett about his log had they seen it. As the defence were given a large number of documents, one can't assume that they read all of them.
You look at the trial exhibits and the potential witnesses very carefully. Only someone who has no time to put into a case and thus has no business trying it would not carefully look at the exhibits. You want to know them precisely so you know how to blunt anything the other side will be saying. So even if they were too lazy to look at the logs when they were disclosed with boxes of other documents you look over every exhibit.
The fact of the matter is that the exhibit is not noteworthy. There would not be any basis to suggest at trial that it proved Nevill had phoned police himself. It described a call that it purported came from West. The people with the conspiracy claims are asserting it was doctored and especially faulting the defense for not figuring out it was doctored.
They have no proof it was doctored though which is a pretty huge problem for them.
-
They should have looked over everything, but mistakes can happen. I am not suggesting that Bonnett's log is absolute proof that Nevill called Pc West, just that the defence would have wanted to question Bonnett about his log if they had seen it.
-
The defence during trial did not see sight of the two contradictory phone log contents, other wise all hell would have broke loose. We should not lose sight of the fact that a collection of words interpreted differently by one party or another can have lifeyhreatoning consequences, for some. The case of Derek Bentley springs to mind, where the prosecution allegged that when Bentley called out to an accomplice, "let him have it", it meant shoot the policeman, and the jury bought into that interpretation, and found Bentley guilty, and he was subsequently hanged, but pardened many years later. In the instant case, the discrepancies and inconsistencies between one log and the other, are too serious to ignore, and I do not think there is any question that had the defence got sight of the contents of both phone logs during the trial, the defence would have relished the opportunity to discredit prosecution claims that the father would not have called up the son in the middle of the night, he wouldcall the police instead, which the defence would have been able tostrongly suggest otherwise...
-
The defence during trial did not see sight of the two contradictory phone log contents, other wise all hell would have broke loose. We should not lose sight of the fact that a collection of words interpreted differently by one party or another can have lifeyhreatoning consequences, for some. The case of Derek Bentley springs to mind, where the prosecution allegged that when Bentley called out to an accomplice, "let him have it", it meant shoot the policeman, and the jury bought into that interpretation, and found Bentley guilty, and he was subsequently hanged, but pardened many years later. In the instant case, the discrepancies and inconsistencies between one log and the other, are too serious to ignore, and I do not think there is any question that had the defence got sight of the contents of both phone logs during the trial, the defence would have relished the opportunity to discredit prosecution claims that the father would not have called up the son in the middle of the night, he wouldcall the police instead, which the defence would have been able tostrongly suggest otherwise...
The logs are not contradictory, nor do they suggest Nevill phoned police himself. Just liek the defense lawyers can't do anything with them now to help Jeremy the trial lawyers could not have done anything with them during the trial.
You can pretend the logs prove Jeremy made a phone call all you like. it won't change the fact that they don't do such. You swore up and down the logs were altered to conceal Nevill made a call which by deifnition means as they currently exist they do not reveal such.
You can't prove they were altered and don't even have a guess as to who altered them and when let alone proof. Thus not even the appeal lawyers can do anything with this let alone the trial lawyers.
What could they have argued at trial?
-
Are you okay, scipio_usmc? You just stated "You can pretend the logs prove Jeremy made a phone call all you like. it won't change the fact that they don't do such." That's nonsense. We all agree that Jeremy made a telephone call; it's whether Nevill called the police as well that is being debated. The defence didn't need to prove Jeremy innocent. They would have been delighted to cause the jury to have some doubt, and raising questions about Bonnett's log would clearly have been a way to do that if they'd seen the log and recalled what it said.
-
Are you okay, scipio_usmc? You just stated "You can pretend the logs prove Jeremy made a phone call all you like. it won't change the fact that they don't do such." That's nonsense. We all agree that Jeremy made a telephone call; it's whether Nevill called the police as well that is being debated. The defence didn't need to prove Jeremy innocent. They would have been delighted to cause the jury to have some doubt, and raising questions about Bonnett's log would clearly have been a way to do that if they'd seen the log and recalled what it said.
Obviously Scipio made a mistake (we all do from time to time) and meant 'Neville' oh and |Bonnett's log WAS made available to the jury - the OS says so!! But I'm sure if you contact the campaign team, they will clarify that for you.
-
Are you okay, scipio_usmc? You just stated "You can pretend the logs prove Jeremy made a phone call all you like. it won't change the fact that they don't do such." That's nonsense. We all agree that Jeremy made a telephone call; it's whether Nevill called the police as well that is being debated. The defence didn't need to prove Jeremy innocent. They would have been delighted to cause the jury to have some doubt, and raising questions about Bonnett's log would clearly have been a way to do that if they'd seen the log and recalled what it said.
Oh gee I typed Jeremy instead of Nevill. Given the context anyone should be able to figure that out.
What doubt is raised by the logs? They are not contradictory and do not in any way suggest a call fro Nevill was made. Those insisting the logs prove a call from Nevill was made insist the logs were doctored. Just reading the logs doesn't present any suggestion of a call from Nevill. It would not have been permissible to argue that the log reflects a call from Nevill and was doctored they would have to call Bonnett to the stand and try getting him to admi he received a call from nevill and when he denied such they are stuck with his denial.
Far from establishing any doubt it just would make the defense look foolish much like those on this board making the argument look foolish.
-
What doubt is raised by the logs? They are not contradictory and do not in any way suggest a call from Nevill was made.
They give Sheila's age differently and Bonnett's log gives Nevill's information as though it had been passed directly to Pc West rather than via Jeremy - apart from the note about the other weapons at WHF, it makes no mention of Jeremy, thereby raising the possibility that Nevill had called Pc West.
Just reading the logs doesn't present any suggestion of a call from Nevill.
As explained above, the logs do suggest a call from Nevill to Pc West.
. . . they would have to call Bonnett to the stand
The defence team evidently hadn't read Bonnett's log. They weren't thorough enough. They should also have found out who the officer at Witham was that Pc West said he contacted, but they didn't. They just accepted what Pc West said and did very little to verify it.
-
They give Sheila's age differently and Bonnett's log gives Nevill's information as though it had been passed directly to Pc West rather than via Jeremy - apart from the note about the other weapons at WHF, it makes no mention of Jeremy, thereby raising the possibility that Nevill had called Pc West.
But they both refer to Sheila as 'Bamber' are you trying to say that BOTH Neville and Jeremy made the same mistake? Bonnett either heard the age incorrectly or West made a mistake - simples! Bonnett wrote the log (or West passed it on) as if it was Neville who called because it was ONLY his details that were required - he was the victim, not Jeremy. It was Neville's phone number and address they were interested in
As explained above, the logs do suggest a call from Nevill to Pc West.
As explained above, they don't.
The defence team evidently hadn't read Bonnett's log. They weren't thorough enough. They should also have found out who the officer at Witham was that Pc West said he contacted, but they didn't. They just accepted what Pc West said and did very little to verify it.
Bonnett's log was show to the jury, you're just in denial on that point. The OS states clearly that which log the jury saw. Did the defense team have their eyes shut? You seem to be blocking your eyes and ears to what actually happened to make it fit your conspiracy theory.
-
They give Sheila's age differently and Bonnett's log gives Nevill's information as though it had been passed directly to Pc West rather than via Jeremy - apart from the note about the other weapons at WHF, it makes no mention of Jeremy, thereby raising the possibility that Nevill had called Pc West.
As explained above, the logs do suggest a call from Nevill to Pc West.
The defence team evidently hadn't read Bonnett's log. They weren't thorough enough. They should also have found out who the officer at Witham was that Pc West said he contacted, but they didn't. They just accepted what Pc West said and did very little to verify it.
All you are doing is digging your hole deeper by straining to pretend there is a way to suggest that Bonnett's log suggests West received a call directly from Nevill.
As plain as day the log states, "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber after the phone went dead."
Far from the log asserting that Jeremy simply passed a message about shotguns it makes clear that the entire message was passed from Jeremy to CD 1990 which is PC West.
Trying to hang your hat on the age dispcrepancy doesn't help at all because your own admisison is that eveyrthing Bonnett wrote was fed to him by West which means the discrepacy cna only be attributed to one of the following:
1) West told Bonnett a different age than he wrote down
or
2) Bonnett wrote down a different age than West told him
Neither of these help you in any way, shape or form. The discrepancy only helps those who allege Bonnett's log reflects a call from Nevill to Bonnett and not much because she was actually 28 according to the 2002 Appeal decision.
Your entire argument can be summed up as this:
You choose to believe that it was later altered with the following addition to pretend the log was referring to a call from Nevill:
"Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber after the phone went dead."
Furthermore that means there must be a log West had from Nevill with was altered or destroyed but you have no evidence of such.
In addition, it means both Bonnett and West lied by concealing the call from Nevill very early on in th einvestigaiton when the police still thought it was a murde rsuicide.
Last, it means they chose not to tell Jeremy that they had already received a call form nevill and had already dispatched police ot the scene to meet nevill and instea dfeatured them placing him on hold and pretending they were getting the information form him for the first time, pretending they were dispatching police because of his call and asked him to meet the police there though the police had been dispatched to meet Nevill.
We are also expected to believe that Nevill chose to call Jeremy before police and then immediately called police and chose not to diall 999 but instead had the Chelmsford Police station number memorized, even though it was not his local station.
If you can't see the desperation and ridiculousness of your arguments then there is little hope of trying to debate this issue further with you. All the issues have been fully explored and the choice of each person is whether to face relaity and logic or ignore same.
-
But they both refer to Sheila as 'Bamber' are you trying to say that BOTH Neville and Jeremy made the same mistake?
No. Jeremy didn't make a mistake. He said "Bamber" deliberately as he couldn't recall "Caffell".
Bonnett either heard the age incorrectly or West made a mistake - Bonnett wrote the log (or West passed it on) as if it was Neville who called because it was ONLY his details that were required
That's your theory, an alternative explanation is that Pc West received two calls, one from Nevill and then one from Jeremy. It wasn't only the logged details that were relevant. It was also relevant that Nevill asked Jeremy to come over to WHF. I would expect that the police were trained to pass on facts without rephrasing them into what would have been said by a fourth party.
As explained above, they don't.
In your opinion, which you justify with unsupported assertions about how the police communicate. However, there is certainly reasonable doubt.
Bonnett's log was shown to the jury, you're just in denial on that point.
No documents were shown to the jury. A large number of documents were made available to them, but nobody else knows how many were read by them.
-
. . . the log states, "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber after the phone went dead."
It then states "Mr. Bamber has a collection of shotguns and ·410's." It doesn't specifically assert that the preceding information about Sheila came from the same source. I'm not suggesting that the first sentence was written for the purposes of deception or pretence, but that it was written to clarify the source for the second sentence.
. . . it makes clear that the entire message was passed from Jeremy to CD 1990.
That's your interpretation, not what the log specifically states.
West told Bonnett a different age than he wrote down
I'm suggesting EP have withheld (or destroyed) Pc West's log of Nevill's call, where 26 was stated as Sheila's age.
Furthermore that means there must be a log West had from Nevill with was altered or destroyed but you have no evidence of such.
That concedes the possibility, merely pointing out the lack of evidence. Direct evidence isn't yet available, as Pc West's first log has been withheld or destroyed.
In addition, it means both Bonnett and West lied by concealing the call from Nevill very early on in the investigaiton when the police still thought it was a murder suicide.
Whereas you confidently believe the police never withheld anything? Do you believe the police never make totally false claims?
Last, it means they chose not to tell Jeremy that they had already received a call from Nevill . . . and asked him to meet the police there though the police had been dispatched to meet Nevill.
There's nothing to suggest the police were despatched to meet Nevill. There was no need to tell Jeremy that Nevill had called the police already. Jeremy was providing new information, that Nevill had called him, asking him to come over as his sister had gone crazy and had the gun, and giving Sheila's age as 27, whereas Nevill had apparently told Pc West just his details and that his daughter had gone berserk and had got hold of a gun, without mentioning that he had called Jeremy.
We are also expected to believe that Nevill chose to call Jeremy before police and then immediately called police and chose not to dial 999 but instead had the Chelmsford Police station number memorized, even though it was not his local station.
No, you needn't believe it, but I'm suggesting it's not beyond reasonable doubt. The telephone number for Chelmsford police station seems to have been changed since 1985, but police stations often have easily remembered telephone numbers.
-
No. Jeremy didn't make a mistake. He said "Bamber" deliberately as he couldn't recall "Caffell".
I know, I posted snippets of the documents that recounted such. You are avoiding the substantive points I raised by diverting attention from such substance.
That doesn't work with me I will just keep returning to it. You are suggesting that Nevill and Jeremy both could not remember her last name and both provided her name as Sheila Bamber. Also that both provided the wrong age for her.
You don't have any way to know whether West told Bonnet Sheila was age 26 or 27. West could have told Bonnett age 26 and yet Bonnet misheard him or misrecorded the number. West could have mispoke and said 27 though he meant to say 26.
Instead of facing this as the universe of logical possibilities you:
Suggest that before Jeremy called West Nevill called West and Nevill erroneously provided Sheila's age as 27, plus for whatever reason erroneously provided her last name as Bamber and that he then provided all this information to Bonnett. Then when Jeremy called he took down eveyrthing without ever telling Jeremy about the call from nevill eve nthough it would comfort Jeremy to know his father was still alive to call police after Jeremy was disconnected from him. That diconnection and busy signal was so worrysome they even did a line check though they could have simply told Jeremy it wa sbusy because he was on the phone with police and was still alive.
Your vast conspiracy of hiding a call from Nevill all based around West either providing Bonnet age 27 by accident or Bonnett accidentally writing 27 despite being told 26 is baseless and so fanciful that one has to wonder how you can allege any of this with a straight face.
That's your theory, an alternative explanation is that Pc West received two calls, one from Nevill and then one from Jeremy. It wasn't only the logged details that were relevant. It was also relevant that Nevill asked Jeremy to come over to WHF. I would expect that the police were trained to pass on facts without rephrasing them into what would have been said by a fourth party.
In your opinion, which you justify with unsupported assertions about how the police communicate. However, there is certainly reasonable doubt.
No documents were shown to the jury. A large number of documents were made available to them, but nobody else knows how many were read by them.
It doens't matter what the jury read we are debating the soundness of the claims you are making and they are totally ridiculous claims. Police don't write down what they hear verbatim nor do they pass to other everything verbaitm. Bonnett made an effort to try to write down what Jeremy was supposedly told by his father while West put it from Jeremy's perspective. Both mean the same thing. You are straining severely but just spinning in cuircles not getting anywhere.
-
You are suggesting that Nevill and Jeremy both could not remember her last name and both provided her name as Sheila Bamber.
Correct for Jeremy. I think Nevill probably knew "Caffell", but chose to give "Bamber" anyway.
Also that both provided the wrong age for her.
Yes, but it's possible that neither knew her correct age anyway.
You don't have any way to know whether West told Bonnet Sheila was age 26 or 27.
I haven't claimed to know that. As Pc West wrote "26yrs", whereas Pc West wrote "27", it suggests either a mistake of some kind, or that the ultimate source for "26yrs" was a different person - Nevill.
Then when Jeremy called he took down everything without ever telling Jeremy about the call from Nevill even though it would comfort Jeremy to know his father was still alive to call police after Jeremy was disconnected from him.
Huh? Pc West would have known Nevill was alive at about 03:26, but not at 03:36 when Jeremy called. Telling Jeremy "well your father was alive 10 minutes ago" could well have upset him rather than comfort him. Jeremy didn't seem upset, just concerned, so Pc West wrote down what Jeremy had told him as quickly as he could, then called HQIR again.
Police don't write down what they hear verbatim.
It was appropriate for Pc West to write down verbatim what Jeremy said his father had told him, especially as it was just a short sentence that could be written quickly. It wasn't appropriate for Pc West to reword it completely to give Nevill's perspective when talking to Bonnett because he'd already told Bonnett about Nevill's similar call to him. Bonnett wrote "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." because that was significant new information. We don't know what else Pc West told Bonnett as a consequence of Jeremy's call.[/quote]
-
Correct for Jeremy. I think Nevill probably knew "Caffell", but chose to give "Bamber" anyway.
Yes, but it's possible that neither knew her correct age anyway.
I haven't claimed to know that. As Pc West wrote "26yrs", whereas Pc West wrote "27", it suggests either a mistake of some kind, or that the ultimate source for "26yrs" was a different person - Nevill.
It is not logical at all to assume that West was given 2 different ages by 2 different people, that there were 2 different logs with 2 different ages, that he provided the age from Nevill's log to Bonnett then destroyed the log from Nevill, did not mention it in his pocketbook and dishonestly neve rreavealed the clal in any of his statements. The suggesiton that could be a realistic inference to draw from the age being different on Bonnett's log is simply ridiculous. The only realistic possibilities are that either:
West messed up and provided a different age than he had written on his log or Bonnett misunderstood the age West provided or miswrote the age.
Huh? Pc West would have known Nevill was alive at about 03:26, but not at 03:36 when Jeremy called. Telling Jeremy "well your father was alive 10 minutes ago" could well have upset him rather than comfort him. Jeremy didn't seem upset, just concerned, so Pc West wrote down what Jeremy had told him as quickly as he could, then called HQIR again.
Again hiding from reality. It would have taken 10 minutes or so to record everything form Nevill just liek it did from Jeremy. So Nevill woudl have just gotten off the phone with West right before Jeremy called had Jeremy actually called at 3:36. Since CA7 had already been dispatched at 3:35 that would mean it would have been already dispatched prior to Jeremy's call. So Jeremy would have been told not to worry his father called already and a car was already dispatched. West would not have any need to ask Jeremy for Nevill's address and phone number, or to ask who was staying at WHF or SHeila's name and age or the rest because he woudl already have had it. Nor any need to put him on hold because the car would already have been dispatched.
You seem confused by the timline you are alleging. Here is the timline you are presenting:
Nevill calls Jeremy, is disconnected
Nevill calls police
Jeremy calls police saying he was on the phone with his father but the call was disconnecte dna dthe line was busy when he tried to call back.
Surely you can see that this would mean the phone had been used AFTER the call was disconnected and would account for why it was busy. Jeremy would be very happy to know that his father didn't die when the phone was disconnected but still alive after that to call police.
They checked the line specifically because of Jeremy's claim the line went dead and then he coudl nto get through anymore so tha tis the last time anyone was in contact with the peopel inside th ehouse. If Nevill had called police this check woudl not have been necessary. So there were 2 different reasons to tell Jeremy his father called had that been the case. So they coudl tell him they already sent a car and so he would know that the line was busy because his father had called the police.
Trying to pretend they would nto have told him is a waste of time. Trying to pretend they would not have sent a car in response to Nevill's call and waited till jeremy's call is a waste of time. Trying to pretend they would have asked Jeremy for all the information that they alreayd would have gotten from Nevill is a waste of time.
Your arguments fail miserably.
It was appropriate for Pc West to write down verbatim what Jeremy said his father had told him, especially as it was just a short sentence that could be written quickly. It wasn't appropriate for Pc West to reword it completely to give Nevill's perspective when talking to Bonnett because he'd already told Bonnett about Nevill's similar call to him. Bonnett wrote "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." because that was significant new information. We don't know what else Pc West told Bonnett as a consequence of Jeremy's call.
Taking down information fast doesn't allow one to write verbatim you would have to keep making the person repeat it over and over. What matters is the content not the exact language.
-
Correct for Jeremy. I think Nevill probably knew "Caffell", but chose to give "Bamber" anyway.
Yes, but it's possible that neither knew her correct age anyway.
A little convenient for you argument.
I haven't claimed to know that. As Pc West wrote "26yrs", whereas Pc West wrote "27", it suggests either a mistake of some kind, or that the ultimate source for "26yrs" was a different person - Nevill.
And yet that age is incorrect - so more likely a mistake.
Huh? Pc West would have known Nevill was alive at about 03:26, but not at 03:36 when Jeremy called. Telling Jeremy "well your father was alive 10 minutes ago" could well have upset him rather than comfort him. Jeremy didn't seem upset, just concerned, so Pc West wrote down what Jeremy had told him as quickly as he could, then called HQIR again.
Police officers aren't social workers if the call had already been logged, it wouldn't need to be logged again and West WOULD have explain to Jeremy that he father had already called. It's simple common sense and there was no reason not to mention it THEN or later down the line when the relatives insisted Jeremy was guilty.
It was appropriate for Pc West to write down verbatim what Jeremy said his father had told him, especially as it was just a short sentence that could be written quickly. It wasn't appropriate for Pc West to reword it completely to give Nevill's perspective when talking to Bonnett because he'd already told Bonnett about Nevill's similar call to him. Bonnett wrote "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." because that was significant new information. We don't know what else Pc West told Bonnett as a consequence of Jeremy's call.
Appropriate or not - that's what happened and this is clear from the sentence "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr. Bamber, after the phone went dead.
-
It is not logical at all to assume that West was given 2 different ages by 2 different people, that there were 2 different logs with 2 different ages, that he provided the age from Nevill's log to Bonnett then destroyed the log from Nevill, did not mention it in his pocketbook and dishonestly never revealed the call in any of his statements.
I haven't assumed any of that. In particular, I'm not saying any log must have been destroyed, as we know that EP have mislaid, refused to release, or denied the existence of certain logs, statements and other evidence. Why did it take a court order in 2004 for them to release 24 pages of logging that nobody at the trial had seen? I haven't seen Pc West's pocketbook - have you? I'm saying that the differences between the logs suggest the possibility that Nevill called the police. If your timeline is correct, what was Pc West doing in the 6 minutes prior to the line check that he logged at 3:42, and why did he contradict another officer regarding the accuracy of the clock he used?
It would have taken 10 minutes or so to record everything form Nevill just like it did from Jeremy.
You haven't shown that it took 10 minutes or so for Jeremy. Pc West insisted he took down the key facts in less than a minute. He would have had no trouble in writing well within that time Jeremy's name, address and telephone number, and then the short message (verbatim) that Jeremy said he received from Nevill. He testified that he then put Jeremy on hold for about 3 minutes. You have cited no evidence to show that is insufficient time. That accounts for about 4 minutes, and he then spoke to Jeremy again for an unknown time. If that final discussion with Jeremy lasted 2 minutes, the entire call took 6 minutes, not 10. If Nevill called, we can't assume that he was put on hold. If he wasn't, his call could have been very short.
Since CA7 had already been dispatched at 3:35 that would mean it would have been already dispatched prior to Jeremy's call.
So Nevill had apparently called earlier unless the time of 3:36 was incorrect, yet the police investigated that discrepancy and never worked out just why it was incorrect. EP officers contradicted each other on that issue.
So Jeremy would have been told not to worry his father called already and a car was already dispatched.
Not necessarily. Although Jeremy seemed straightforward, West couldn't know that he wouldn't later be accused of having hired someone to go to WHF and kill his family. There was no pressing need to tell him anything about Nevill's call, and doing so would have wasted time and gained nothing.
You seem confused by the timeline you are alleging.
Surely you can see that this would mean the phone had been used AFTER the call was disconnected and would account for why it was busy.
That's what I suggested originally, but Nevill needn't have called the police immediately. The handset could simply have been off-hook for a brief period before Nevill called the police.
Jeremy would be very happy to know that his father didn't die when the phone was disconnected but still alive after that to call police.
That's absurd. Jeremy wasn't assuming that his father was dead just because the call had been ended abruptly. There was no reason for Pc West to start talking about whether Nevill was alive or dead ten minutes earlier. That couldn't reassure Jeremy about anyone else in the house, so Jeremy would still have been very concerned. Pc West was quite correct to just follow standard procedure.
-
I haven't assumed any of that. In particular, I'm not saying any log must have been destroyed, as we know that EP have mislaid, refused to release, or denied the existence of certain logs, statements and other evidence. Why did it take a court order in 2004 for them to release 24 pages of logging that nobody at the trial had seen? I haven't seen Pc West's pocketbook - have you? I'm saying that the differences between the logs suggest the possibility that Nevill called the police. If your timeline is correct, what was Pc West doing in the 6 minutes prior to the line check that he logged at 3:42, and why did he contradict another officer regarding the accuracy of the clock he used?
You haven't shown that it took 10 minutes or so for Jeremy. Pc West insisted he took down the key facts in less than a minute. He would have had no trouble in writing well within that time Jeremy's name, address and telephone number, and then the short message (verbatim) that Jeremy said he received from Nevill. He testified that he then put Jeremy on hold for about 3 minutes. You have cited no evidence to show that is insufficient time. That accounts for about 4 minutes, and he then spoke to Jeremy again for an unknown time. If that final discussion with Jeremy lasted 2 minutes, the entire call took 6 minutes, not 10. If Nevill called, we can't assume that he was put on hold. If he wasn't, his call could have been very short.
Your claim that the age difference in both logs suggests a call from Nevill is patently ridiculous. You failed miserable at establishing how it suggests such. Your explanation required a whole lot more including there being another log from West where he wrote 27 instead of 26 that listed the caller as Nevill. The difference between the 2 logs simply suggests either West messed up and said 27 by accident or Bonnett made a mistake and recorded 27 though told 26. That is all it suggests by looking at the 2 logs. Your giant leap that it suggests another log out there reflecting a call from Nevill where 27 was recorded is outlandish, not a natural suggestion from the age difference recorded in the 2 logs.
No the defense has not publicly released his pocketbook but had been provided with a copy of his pocketbook before trial and still have a copy today. Obviously if it mentioned a call from Nevill then his trial lawyers would have seized upon it as well as his appellate lawyers. So we know it was not in his pocketbook.
It doesn't matter if a call from Nevill would have last 5 minutes or 10 minutes. It would have ended shortly before Jeremy's call not 10 minutes before as you suggest. In any event not even Jeremy's lawyers believed that it took West only a minute to record all the information from Jeremy and neither do I. You have to repeat things multiple times and talk slowly to enable someone to record them when reciting over the phone. You tell part of your story, a cop says ok this is major so let me write this down and has it repeated as it is taken down then asks the important details not yet broached.
The only way Jeremy's call would have been short would have been if West told Jeremy he already had obtained all the information from Nevill so didn't need it again which is what would have happened had Nevill called as you claim but clearly that didn't happen. Jeremy was asked all the details of who was at WHF, the address, phone number, name and age of his sister etc proving that Nevill had no called previously or such would not have been asked of him.
So Nevill had apparently called earlier unless the time of 3:36 was incorrect, yet the police investigated that discrepancy and never worked out just why it was incorrect. EP officers contradicted each other on that issue.
The contradiction is largely contrived. There was a gap in time between Jeremy's call to West and West's call to Bonnett so by definition the times should not match. IF West recorded the time he received Jeremy's call right away it should be several minutes earlier than what Bonnett recorded. If he did it at the end of the call which is quite possible by his own admission then naturally it would be later than what Bonnett recorded.
West got a call about a crazy girl running around with a gun. it is quite natural for him to neglect looking at the clock immediately an dinstead delving into the substnace and at the end realizing he didn't include the time and putting the time at the end of the call.
All the desperation from jeremy supporters of trying to make something out of the difference just shows how there is nothing valid for Jeremy supporters to raise. The difference is extremely insignificant.
Not necessarily. Although Jeremy seemed straightforward, West couldn't know that he wouldn't later be accused of having hired someone to go to WHF and kill his family. There was no pressing need to tell him anything about Nevill's call, and doing so would have wasted time and gained nothing.
That's what I suggested originally, but Nevill needn't have called the police immediately. The handset could simply have been off-hook for a brief period before Nevill called the police.
That's absurd. Jeremy wasn't assuming that his father was dead just because the call had been ended abruptly. There was no reason for Pc West to start talking about whether Nevill was alive or dead ten minutes earlier. That couldn't reassure Jeremy about anyone else in the house, so Jeremy would still have been very concerned. Pc West was quite correct to just follow standard procedure.
This is your most pathetic argument yet. West foresaw that Jeremy might be accused of the crime so he refused to disclose to Jeremy that Nevill had just phoned and decided to create a great deal of extra work for himself by taking down all the information he had just obtained from Nevill all over again? that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If he just fielded a call from Nevill that was blaming Sheila why would he suspect Jeremy?
You are presenting the picture that he foresaw maybe police would want to frame Jeremy and not reveal a call from Nevill had been made so he didn't tell Jeremy and took the information all down again. That is simply absurd.
-
Your claim the athe age difference in both logs suggests a call from Nevill is patently ridiculous. You failed miserable at establishing how it suggests such. Your explanation required a whole lot more including ther ebeing another log from West where he wrote 27 istead of 26 that listed the caller as Nevill. The difference between the 2 logs simply suggests either West messed up and said 27 by accident or Bonnett mad e amsitake and recorded 27 though told 26. Thatt is all it suggests by looking at the 2 logs. Your giant leap that it suggests another log out there of a call from Nevill where 27 was recorded it outlandish not a natural suggestion from the difference.
No the defense has not publicly released his pocketbook but had been provided with a copy of his pocketbook before tiral and still have a copy today. Obviously if it mentioned a call from Nevill then his trial lawyers would have seized upon it as well as his appellate lawyers. So we know it wa snot in his pocketbook.
It doesn't matter if a call form Nevill would have last 5 minutes or 10 minutes. It owuld jhave ended shortly before Jeremy's call not 10 minutes before as you suggest. In any evdent not even Jeremy's lawyers believed him that it took him only a minute to record all the information from Jeremy and neither do I. You have to repeated things multiple times and talk slowly to enable someone to record them. You tell part of your story a cop says ok let me wrte this down and takes it down again then asks the important details not yet broached.
The only way Jeremy's call would have been short would have been if West told jeremy he already had obtianed all th einformation from Nevill so didn't need it again which is what woudl have happened had nevill called as you claim but clearly that didn't happen. Jeremy was asked all the details of who was at WHF, the address, phone number, name and age of his siter etc proving that Nevill had no called previously or such would not have been asked of him.
The contradiction is largely contrived. There was a gap in time between Jeremy's call to West and West's call to Bonnett so by definition the times should not match. IF West recorded the time he received Jeremy's call right away it should be several minutes earlier than what Bonnett recorded. If he did it at the end of the call which is quite possible by his own admission then naturally it would be later than what Bonnett recorded.
West got a call about a crazy girl running around with a gun. it is quite natural for him to neglect looking at the clock immediately an dinstead delving into the substnace and at the end realizing he didn't include the time and putting the time at the end of the call.
All the desperation from jeremy supporters of trying to make something out of the difference just shows how there is nothing valid for Jeremy supporters to raise. The difference is extremely insignificant.
This is your most pathetic argument yet. West foresaw that Jeremy might be accused of the crime so he refused to disclose to Jeremy that Nevill had just phoned and decided to create a great deal of extra work for himself by taking down all the information he had just obtained from Nevill all over again? that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If he just fielded a call from Nevill that was blaming Sheila why would he suspect Jeremy?
You are presenting the picture that he foresaw maybe police would want to frame Jeremy and not reveal a call from Nevill had been made so he didn't tell Jeremy and took the information all down again. That is simply absurd.
I agree, I can't believe that the issue has been dragged out this long - rationally there is only one answer and no matter how much twisting and turning is applied - there was no call from Neville.
-
I agree, I can't believe that the issue has been dragged out this long - rationally there is only one answer and no matter how much twisting and turning is applied - there was no call from Neville.
The whole line is ridiculous but I found Reader's latest claim particularly astonishing:
"Although Jeremy seemed straightforward, West couldn't know that he wouldn't later be accused of having hired someone to go to WHF and kill his family. There was no pressing need to tell him anything about Nevill's call, and doing so would have wasted time and gained nothing."
This is basically saying West anticipated the need to conceal Nevill's call in case police wanted to frame Jeremy. There is no other way to read it. I was floored by this one.
-
I've always respected Reader and his posts, but I've found the recent posts of his/hers on the timings a little shocking as if they are attempting to bend something so much to suit their opinion that it's snapped.
-
Behave yourself,Mat,you're being taken in by a con. Reader's been here a long time remember.
-
The whole line is ridiculous but I found Reader's latest claim particularly astonishing:
"Although Jeremy seemed straightforward, West couldn't know that he wouldn't later be accused of having hired someone to go to WHF and kill his family. There was no pressing need to tell him anything about Nevill's call, and doing so would have wasted time and gained nothing."
This is basically saying West anticipated the need to conceal Nevill's call in case police wanted to frame Jeremy. There is no other way to read it. I was floored by this one.
It would be interesting to see who (if anyone) is willing to agree with him on this. It's more than grasping at straws. The thought process that would have had to go on in West's mind to come anywhere near that is quite complex.
-
Behave yourself,Mat,you're being taken in by a con. Reader's been here a long time remember.
A con? What con? The only con being promoted is that Neville rang the police and no matter how long Reader has been here, it doesn't mean his posts can't be challenged.
-
A con? What con? The only con being promoted is that Neville rang the police and no matter how long Reader has been here, it doesn't mean his posts can't be challenged.
Caroline,I'm afraid you don't understand. Con,yes. Scipio is a serial one with enough ID's to choke a goat, and has a knack of drawing people in,but I won't bend to control and manipulation. Is possibly a Yahoo worker.That right," Scipio " ?
As regards replies to Reader, there are challenges and there are ways of challenging. Insults aren't the answer.
-
However,I don't want to stop peoples' enjoyment,but don't say I didn't warn you.Carry on as you were.
-
Caroline,I'm afraid you don't understand. Con,yes. Scipio is a serial one with enough ID's to choke a goat, and has a knack of drawing people in,but I won't bend to control and manipulation. Is possibly a Yahoo worker.That right," Scipio " ?
As regards replies to Reader, there are challenges and there are ways of challenging. Insults aren't the answer.
Of course they aren't but that works both ways.
How do you know how many ID's Scipio has? Having been on the end of the 'you're someone else' accusation I think we should be careful when accusing people of virtual multiple personality. He uses the same name on the Amityville site and on the red forum as he does here.
-
Of course they aren't but that works both ways.
How do you know how many ID's Scipio has? Having been on the end of the 'you're someone else' accusation I think we should be careful when accusing people of virtual multiple personality. He uses the same name on the Amityville site and on the red forum as he does here.
Well if I'm wrong,why isn't he here defending himself ?
Of course he'll use the same ID on the three sites,because he knows any one of us can visit them and see his ID. As for other sites,you wouldn't know,but I can guarantee he wouldn't use this same ID.
-
Behave yourself,Mat,you're being taken in by a con. Reader's been here a long time remember.
This has nothing to do with Scipio. This is Carolines work I'm talknig about, what Caroline has pointed out is IMO clear, prescise and logical- are you saying Caroline is conning me?
-
You know damn well that's not what I said,nor did I imply it. Jeeze,what is wrong with you folk that your so quick to accuse ? How can you be so stupid,Mat ?
-
This has nothing to do with Scipio. This is Carolines work I'm talknig about, what Caroline has pointed out is IMO clear, prescise and logical- are you saying Caroline is conning me?
It has EVERYTHING to do with Scipio !!
-
You know damn well that's not what I said,nor did I imply it. Jeeze,what is wrong with you folk that your so quick to accuse ? How can you be so stupid,Mat ?
What's the con then? I replied to Reader about comments on the call timings. You told me not to get sucked into the con... what's the con?
-
Oh Christ,forget it. I'm in utter disbelief here that you're so thick.
-
Well if I'm wrong,why isn't he here defending himself ?
Of course he'll use the same ID on the three sites,because he knows any one of us can visit them and see his ID. As for other sites,you wouldn't know,but I can guarantee he wouldn't use this same ID.
When would you have ever wanted to go to the Amityville site? I doubt you would ever have heard of it if it hadn't been posted here. But if he chooses to post on other sites using other names (which I doubt) why is it anyone's business here? That's the same for everyone - not just Schipio. I'm sure there are members here who post on other sites and use different names. Although why they would want to, is beyond me - it's bad enough getting abuse from one site, never mind more!!
-
I don't think anyone is conning anyone, we all have free will to believe what we want. I don't understand why people take an opposite view so personally!!
-
Oh Christ,forget it. I'm in utter disbelief here that you're so thick.
I was speaking to Reader/Caroline. You told me not to believe the con. It's clear what you meant no matter how much you now wish to distance yourself from it.
When would you have ever wanted to go to the Amityville site? I doubt you would ever have heard of it if it hadn't been posted here. But if he chooses to post on other sites using other names (which I doubt) why is it anyone's business here? That's the same for everyone - not just Schipio. I'm sure there are members here who post on other sites and use different names. Although why they would want to, is beyond me - it's bad enough getting abuse from one site, never mind more!!
My username on Ebay isn't the same as my username here. I apologise for conning people. ;D ;D
I don't think anyone is conning anyone, we all have free will to believe what we want. I don't understand why people take an opposite view so personally!!
I agree.
-
Caroline what is all the fuss about who cares where Scipio posts or indeed anyone else this is the forum where I registered and out with this place is no concern of mine.
-
Well if I'm wrong,why isn't he here defending himself ?
Of course he'll use the same ID on the three sites,because he knows any one of us can visit them and see his ID. As for other sites,you wouldn't know,but I can guarantee he wouldn't use this same ID.
1) I have a job I can't just hand out here waiting for someone to type something
2) You have not articulated anything that needs defending. Your accusation I have multiple ID's doesn't tie in to how I supposedly conned anyone let alone have you articulated what other ID's are supposedly mine. If you attribute someone else's posting to me that are racist or idiotic I would have a reaosn to deny such but not some non-specific claim that makes little sense.
I provided a substantive discussion of the allegations Reader made and went into significant detail to explore the claims and explain why they are false.
If someone wants to discuss the substance further then I am fine with that. Instead you are off on some wasted witch hunt. It amounts to not being able to argue with my points so instead just trying to dismiss anything that comes from me because you don't like me. The best way to attack me would be to provide evidence and sound argument that refutes what I post.
Anytime someone has a view even similar to mine let alone identical people try to blame it on me. I don't care if people agree with me or not or are persuaded by my arguments or not. Some are persuaded by my logic but it so happens that other people know how to think and if they are persuaded it has to do with the evidence and claim nothing to do with me personally. Moreover, people can come to the same conclusions I do and can come across the same evidence I have without needing me to write a word. In fact everyone here should have come across the evidence before since I am late to the game.
While I get criticized for being caustic at least I am caustic during the course of responding substantively.
-
It would be interesting to see who (if anyone) is willing to agree with him on this. It's more than grasping at straws. The thought process that would have had to go on in West's mind to come anywhere near that is quite complex.
I would be interested in who believes Nevill made a call period after seeing this debate and why they think so.
-
As I said,carry on as you were. ::)
-
I would be interested in who believes Nevill made a call period after seeing this debate and why they think so.
Me too - I feel a poll coming on!! ;D
-
As I said,carry on as you were. ::)
Very good sir! ;D
-
Hi Guys
I did until quite recently believed that Ralph Bamber called Jeremy and the police, infact I believed quite a lot of things but no longer I am now seeing things differently hence the change in stance to a guilty one.
-
Is it because of the 10 minute or so gap from Jeremy ringing his father then the phone at WHF being engaged ?
-
Is it because of the 10 minute or so gap from Jeremy ringing his father then the phone at WHF being engaged ?
If as Jeremy said, it was around 03:10 when Neville called and he called him straight back - why was the phone engaged? Neville isn't supposed to have called until around 03:26 and Jeremy's call is logged even later at 03:36. Moreover, what were they both doing during the time when no one is calling anyone (Around 16 mins for Neville and 26 for Jeremy)? And even more coincidence - after Neville is 'supposed' to have called police - the phone is engaged 'again'. So no, it's nothing to do with '10 mins' it's everything about the supposed call. There is nothing to favour that it ever happened.
-
Why not try 3:22 instead of 3:10? If Pc West could make a mistake, so could Jeremy.
On the call time issue, I'm going by what I've seen rather than things such as PC West's pocketbook (that I haven’t seen).
On their own, the two logged times (3:26 and 3:36) suggest two separate calls. That's not the only possible explanation, of course, but it's an explanation directly suggested by the fact that different call times are logged.
We know that EP investigated this issue and even a year later still hadn't reached a definitive conclusion. It’s not difficult to check two clocks, so why did they fail?
Pc West also logged that the operator said the WHF telephone was off-hook at 3:42. His evidence indicates this occurred after Jeremy’s call ended, which is consistent with Jeremy’s call having started at about 3:36 as there is no proof that Jeremy’s call lasted more than 6 minutes.
Pc West also logged that CA7 was “@ scene” at 3:50. That’s consistent with Jeremy having left home at about 3:42 and driven at a normal speed to the place where he was overtaken by CA7. One of the officers in CA7 estimated that Jeremy was driving at no more than 30mph when overtaken. Nobody in CA7 said Jeremy was going slowly.
I’ll deal with the age discrepancy separately.
-
Why not try 3:22 instead of 3:10? If Pc West could make a mistake, so could Jeremy.
On the call time issue, I'm going by what I've seen rather than things such as PC West's pocketbook (that I haven’t seen).
On their own, the two logged times (3:26 and 3:36) suggest two separate calls. That's not the only possible explanation, of course, but it's an explanation directly suggested by the fact that different call times are logged.
We know that EP investigated this issue and even a year later still hadn't reached a definitive conclusion. It’s not difficult to check two clocks, so why did they fail?
Pc West also logged that the operator said the WHF telephone was off-hook at 3:42. His evidence indicates this occurred after Jeremy’s call ended, which is consistent with Jeremy’s call having started at about 3:36 as there is no proof that Jeremy’s call lasted more than 6 minutes.
Pc West also logged that CA7 was “@ scene” at 3:50. That’s consistent with Jeremy having left home at about 3:42 and driven at a normal speed to the place where he was overtaken by CA7. One of the officers in CA7 estimated that Jeremy was driving at no more than 30mph when overtaken. Nobody in CA7 said Jeremy was going slowly.
I’ll deal with the age discrepancy separately.
You're just changing the nature of the evidence to try and suit your position. West may not have made a mistake and was simply sloppy - filling the time in after the call.
There was no call - that much is pretty obvious to most people, even members who lean towards Jeremy being innocent.
-
That's irrelevant. I'm asserting there is some doubt about it, and that is true. I'm considering the times that were logged, and I haven't changed them. Also, I'm pointing out that the police investigated this issue and didn't resolve it definitively. You haven't explained why they're still contradicting each other regarding the accuracy of the clock.
-
That's irrelevant. I'm asserting there is some doubt about it, and that is true. I'm considering the times that were logged, and I haven't changed them. Also, I'm pointing out that the police investigated this issue and didn't resolve it definitively. You haven't explained why they're still contradicting each other regarding the accuracy of the clock.
They did resolve it.
They concluded that the only possibility was that West, for some reason (any reason, it doesn't matter) wrote the wrong time down.
You can pretend otherwise if you want, but it is absolutely clear that there is no evidence or even a suggestion that Nevill called the police..
-
They did resolve it.
They concluded that the only possibility was that West, for some reason (any reason, it doesn't matter) wrote the wrong time down.
You can pretend otherwise if you want, but it is absolutely clear that there is no evidence or even a suggestion that Nevill called the police..
He clearly wrote it at the end of the call but because it's bad practice, he didn't want to admit to it although he did 'hint' that he may have written the wrong time.
-
You know that's not what I'm referring to. Pc West said in court the clock was accurate. His colleague, A/Ps Smith, said it wasn't.
-
You know that's not what I'm referring to. Pc West said in court the clock was accurate. His colleague, A/Ps Smith, said it wasn't.
To be honest, I'm not sure where you are trying to go - there is no evidence of Neville's call - in fact, quite the opposite but you continue to grasp onto it. I don't get it.
-
What explanation do you have for the disagreement about the clock's accuracy? The clock could hardly be accurate for one officer and inaccurate for another.
-
What explanation do you have for the disagreement about the clock's accuracy? The clock could hardly be accurate for one officer and inaccurate for another.
There is no disagreement, West made a mistake.
-
How can asserting that the clock is only rarely inaccurate be a mistake if it's actually common for it to be inaccurate? Did A/Ps Smith make a mistake as well?
-
How can asserting that the clock is only rarely inaccurate be a mistake if it's actually common for it to be inaccurate? Did A/Ps Smith make a mistake as well?
West said it wasn't inaccurate and he was the one accused of making the mistake. He admitted that he probably made a mistake.
-
Did A/Ps Smith make a mistake as well in alleging the clock was often inaccurate?
-
Did A/Ps Smith make a mistake as well in alleging the clock was often inaccurate?
According to West he was in error and we didn't hear from any other officers. Nor did Smith apparently indicate how minutes off he thought the clock often was let alone how he was sure it was wrong and whether it was oftem fast or slow. Saying it was often 2 minutes fast or slow would not help you at all in the claims you would like to make. But that is the problem, you ar enot following the evidence you are biased and want to make specific claims to support Jeremy and are twisting to try to make such claims just like you twisted to try to pretend that Jeremy did not state in his initial written statement that he phoned Julie after police.
-
When Jeremy was interviewed in September 1985, Ds Jones told him that the control room clock was always accurate.
At Jeremy's trial, Pc West said that the clock had been inaccurate on very few occasions. Immediately after confirming A/Ps Smith was working on the night in question, PC West was asked "Would you agree with this, that the Control Room wall clock rarely shows an accurate time?" and said he disagreed with that.
Presumably, Mr Rivlin was aware that A/Ps Smith had said the clock rarely showed an accurate time.
Thus, scipio_usmc, you see to be claiming that A/Ps Smith was mistaken, that Ds Jones and Pc West were right about the clock's accuracy, but that Pc West accidentally misread the clock or wrote 0336 by mistake. If that's the case, did Pc West make another mistake in recording 0342 as the time of the check of the WHF line?
-
When Jeremy was interviewed in September 1985, Ds Jones told him that the control room clock was always accurate.
At Jeremy's trial, Pc West said that the clock had been inaccurate on very few occasions. Immediately after confirming A/Ps Smith was working on the night in question, PC West was asked "Would you agree with this, that the Control Room wall clock rarely shows an accurate time?" and said he disagreed with that.
Presumably, Mr Rivlin was aware that A/Ps Smith had said the clock rarely showed an accurate time.
Thus, scipio_usmc, you see to be claiming that A/Ps Smith was mistaken, that Ds Jones and Pc West were right about the clock's accuracy, but that Pc West accidentally misread the clock or wrote 0336 by mistake. If that's the case, did Pc West make another mistake in recording 0342 as the time of the check of the WHF line?
I don't think West did make a mistake, I think he wrote the time in after the call. He wrote down the main details of what Jeremy said and completed the rest (such as the time) after the call. Hence why Bonnett's log is timed before Wests.
-
I don't think West did make a mistake, I think he wrote the time in after the call. He wrote down the main details of what Jeremy said and completed the rest (such as the time) after the call. Hence why Bonnett's log is timed before Wests.
That would make a lot of sense.
-
When Jeremy was interviewed in September 1985, Ds Jones told him that the control room clock was always accurate.
At Jeremy's trial, Pc West said that the clock had been inaccurate on very few occasions. Immediately after confirming A/Ps Smith was working on the night in question, PC West was asked "Would you agree with this, that the Control Room wall clock rarely shows an accurate time?" and said he disagreed with that.
Presumably, Mr Rivlin was aware that A/Ps Smith had said the clock rarely showed an accurate time.
Thus, scipio_usmc, you see to be claiming that A/Ps Smith was mistaken, that Ds Jones and Pc West were right about the clock's accuracy, but that Pc West accidentally misread the clock or wrote 0336 by mistake. If that's the case, did Pc West make another mistake in recording 0342 as the time of the check of the WHF line?
A/ps Smith apparently made a claim that in his experience the clock was usually wrong, but did not say how minutes off the clock usually was, in what direction it wa susually off and how he knew it was inaccurate. Others say he was wrong. I have no reason to believe his claims over the others unless he produces a solid basis for how much it is usually off and how he knows this. Not only does credibility hang on specifics like how much off it was usally but that is necessary to attempt to use his claims to demonstrate something.
As I have already stated countless times West was not positive of when he wrote down the time. He could have simply written down the time after the call ended. He is not a 999 operator. He wa sused to basic inquiries. He heard a major tale and was so wrapped up with the substantive details he didn't bother to write the time of the call at first. I also have pointed out that the times on both logs should not match anyway. It had to have taken a couple of minutes at least for Jeremy to tell the story in full answering all questions West had and West recording everything then putting him on hold. Thus the time West called Bonnett, which is what Bonnett recorded, would not be the same as what West was recording because West was recording when his call with Jeremy was received or if he forgot to then when it ended. By definition it should be different than what Bonnett recorded anyway.
A digital clock doesn't show seconds. That is one reason I like analog clocks/watches and use them. It is also why the military does so. A call at 3:23 could be 3:23:59. That alone can cause a variation of up to 59 seconds. A call from 3:23:59 that lasts 3 minutes and 1 second before being put on hold will be considered as lasting until 3:27 so look like an extra minute is tacked on. If the clock West used was fast by 1 minute or 2 that would inflate the length even more. We have no way to know the difference in time between the 2 clocks. I doubt they were the same, most likely they were not the same in terms of seconds and could have even been a couple of minutes off. More than a couple of minutes off would be detected and corrected though. A couple of inutes off doesn't help at all to support your allegations. You are grasping at straws because of bias in favor of Jeremy.
The exact time of the WHF line check doesn't matter. All that matters is that it was checked after getting off the phone with Jeremy in response to Jeremy's call. That fact crushes the allegation you are aking. You don't want to fface this fact and still want to press ahead with your ridiculous claim but it does for the reasons I have stated at least 5 times now:
The police would have no reason to do a line check to test Jeremy's claims if Nevill phoned police after he phoned Jeremy. Calling police AFTER calling Jeremy not only explains why the phone would have been busy it PROVES the phone was used AFTER Jeremy's claim of the line going dead. So a call from Nevill to police refutes the notion that the phone simply sat continuously off the hook after calling Jeremy. They did the line check BECAUSE Jeremy claimed the call was disconnected and then the phone constantly busy. Had Nevill called they would have had no need to do the line check until after police at the scene indicated they could not get in touch with the occupants and wanted to try to phone WHF to try to start negotiations.
You also ridiculously suggest that West would keep Nevill's call a secret from Jeremy and take all of the information he already obtained from Nevill over again from Jeremy in case they wanted to conceal the call to essentially frame Jeremy. That is ludicrous. You can't come up with a rational reaosn for Jeremy not to be told and for West to thus not need to ask Jeremy for the same information again. Police are lazy they don't want to take the same information again if it can be avoided.
The longer you drag this charade out the more you are harming your own credibility and showing just how uch of a Jeremy zealot you are.
-
A/ps Smith apparently made a claim that in his experience the clock was usually wrong, . . . Others say he was wrong. I have no reason to believe his claims . . . the times on both logs should not match anyway. It had to have taken a couple of minutes at least for Jeremy to tell the story in full answering all questions West had and West recording everything then putting him on hold.
So can we agree that A/Ps Smith was wrong or misleading, and Ds Jones was right? After all, there is no evidence that the clock had to be adjusted soon afterwards. However, you are calling Pc West untruthful, as he insisted at the trial that it took him less than a minute to deal with Jeremy's call prior to putting him on hold. He was quite adamant about that.
A digital clock doesn't show seconds.
Even in 1985, some digital wall clocks showed seconds.
The exact time of the WHF line check doesn't matter. All that matters is that it was checked after getting off the phone with Jeremy in response to Jeremy's call.
The police would have no reason to do a line check to test Jeremy's claims if Nevill phoned police after he phoned Jeremy.
Pc West had been told by Jeremy that the WHF line was busy, so he checked the line after Jeremy's call ended. Even if he delayed by a few minutes, that call check would have occurred well before 3:42 if Jeremy's call ended at around 3:36. That's why some people keep exaggerating the length of Jeremy's call rather than suggesting that Pc West logged the time when the call ended.
Calling police AFTER calling Jeremy not only explains why the phone would have been busy it PROVES the phone was used AFTER Jeremy's claim of the line going dead.
That's consistent with Nevill ending his call to Jeremy abruptly, then calling the police, and then taking the handset off-hook again.
-
So can we agree that A/Ps Smith was wrong or misleading, and Ds Jones was right? After all, there is no evidence that the clock had to be adjusted soon afterwards. However, you are calling Pc West untruthful, as he insisted at the trial that it took him less than a minute to deal with Jeremy's call prior to putting him on hold. He was quite adamant about that.
I don't know if Smith was right or wrong. He didn't provide enough specifics to nail down his claim let alone explain the basis for his position. My car clock is always a minute ahead. If I fix it it still will be messed up and a minute ahead after a short while. I don't know what is wrong with it. I know it is a minute ahead because my watch is set to the Atomic Clock so I keep it accurate to the second. The variation between my watch and the car clock is constant. ALl my devices at home are off by many seconds which means at times they show different minutes than one another. None of them are accurate like my watch.
I can make the blanket claim that all my devices usually have the wrong time. That doens't explain how off they are. The statement could be true but quite meaningless because what does it matter if all my devices are 1-30 seconds off from the Atomic clock or from one another?
We don't know whether Smith was right and there was some miscule amount it was usually off or what because his claim wasn't specific.
Nor do whe know how much difference there was between the 2 police clocks in question. I am willing to bet they were not both identical and off by several seconds if not a minute.
As far as West's claim he only spoke to Jeremy a minute or less before putting him on hold I view that as him being mistaken, his memory is faulty. It is not credible. He would not instantly start writing. he woudl hear Jeremy's claim then say ok let me take this down I need to log it. Then he would ask Jeremy for all the information he needed and again to describe the acocunt slow enough for him to write down. It took me a minute to tell a cop there was a bear. I didn't try to quote anything or go into some long discussion. There was a bear near woods adjacent to a high school, that's it- simple story. Is it possible West took it as an attack and lied about how long it took to make it look like he responded faster than he did? Possible but more likely he simply had a faulty recollection and understanding of the time involved.
Even in 1985, some digital wall clocks showed seconds.
But most do not.
Pc West had been told by Jeremy that the WHF line was busy, so he checked the line after Jeremy's call ended. Even if he delayed by a few minutes, that call check would have occurred well before 3:42 if Jeremy's call ended at around 3:36. That's why some people keep exaggerating the length of Jeremy's call rather than suggesting that Pc West logged the time when the call ended.
That's consistent with Nevill ending his call to Jeremy abruptly, then calling the police, and then taking the handset off-hook again.
We are going in circles because you don't want to face logic or reality. WHY would West bother to check the line if Nevill made a call to police after calling Jeremy? That would mean the phone was used AFTER Nevill called Jeremy. West would be aware that Nevill used the phone after calling Jeremy. The phoen call to police would be the explanation WHY the phone was busy. The whole reason Jeremy was supposedly concerned was that the call was disconected and he was unable to call back to continue the call. You are alleging that West received a call after this from nevill so obviously the reason for the phone being busy would be that call and no need to worry and assume that the call to Jeremy was disconnected because Nevill was killed.
Your posiiton has been shown a complete farce the longer you still try to maintain a call happened the more ridiculous you look.
-
What does it matter if a call was made or not ? It's not a hanging offence whichever way you vote.FGS !!
-
What does it matter if a call was made or not ? It's not a hanging offence whichever way you vote.FGS !!
It matters a great deal because if Nevill had phoned police to say Sheila went crazy and had the gun then that suggests that she had the gun and was going crazy or someone put Nevill up to that call to falsely blame Sheila. The latter is quite dubious though as who would risk Nevill telling police he was being held at gunpoint by them? If Nevill double crosses you then you are screwed.
-
WHY would West bother to check the line if Nevill made a call to police after calling Jeremy?
Nothing in Pc West's log or evidence indicates Jeremy told him exactly when his father had called him, so Pc West didn't know in which order Nevill made his calls. Anyway, Pc West presumably wanted to speak to Nevill if he could, and asked the operator to check the line because it was busy.
-
West said it wasn't inaccurate and he was the one accused of making the mistake. He admitted that he probably made a mistake.
Pc West didn't say he'd probably made a mistake. He said "Well, there is a dispute over the times. I don't know whose time is right and whose time is wrong." When asked again, he said "It is possible, although certainly there is a variance in times, yes." Nor did he ever suggest he'd written down the time when the call ended rather than the time when it began. He behaved exactly as would be expected if he'd been told not to volunteer the fact that he'd received two calls.
-
Pc West didn't say he'd probably made a mistake. He said "Well, there is a dispute over the times. I don't know whose time is right and whose time is wrong." When asked again, he said "It is possible, although certainly there is a variance in times, yes." Nor did he ever suggest he'd written down the time when the call ended rather than the time when it began. He behaved exactly as would be expected if he'd been told not to volunteer the fact that he'd received two calls.
Or if he'd made a mistake.
-
He'd clearly not been convinced that he made a mistake by what other officers had said. If he had made a mistake, what was he doing after Jeremy's call ended, prior to trying the WHF line?
-
I am bumping this thread up for Gemma as it discusses the phone call timings in detail and includes MANY reasons why I'm suggesting the call from Nevill to police - never happened.
-
I am buping this thread up for Gemma as it discusses the phone call timings in detail and includes MANY reasons why I'm suggesting the call from Nevill to police - never happened.
Caroline, would that be bumping or burping ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Regurgitating. ;D
-
Caroline, would that be bumping or burping ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Bloody keys!! Must clean this keyboard ;D ;D ;D ;D. On second thoughts not actually sure which word is more appropriate ;D ;D
-
Bloody keys!! Must clean this keyboard ;D ;D ;D ;D. On second thoughts not actually sure which word is more appropriate ;D ;D
As it's an action of bringing back/repeating I think "burping" a thread is entirely appropriate ;D ;D