What does this have to do with Nevill's phone call? I see you haven't commented on that. How about the misleading information on the official site? Quite clearly people were under the impression that it was Nevill's log that the jury didn't see because that's the way it has been communicated. The Daily Mail (and other newspapers) also made this mistake - do you think that it is fine to give false impressions when it's in support of Jeremy?
More amusing still are the claims the defense was not made aware of the existence of both.
Bonnett's was an official exhibit.
West's was read into the record by West while he was on the witness stand.
That is on top of the defense receiving copies of both prior to trial.
The defense even had copies of their notebooks and statements which the defense counsel referenced during cross examination.
The truth is that until this century no one though up the failrytale claim that that Bonnett's log reflects a call from Nevill. It wasn't made at trial because no one conceived of such fairytale at the time let alone had any evidence to support such claim.
Making the claim now with no eivdence doesn't amount to a hill of beans and since it is something that could have been raised below but wasnn't it can'
t be raise don appeal anyway. Even if allowed to raise it on appeal though it would not matter because to succeed proof is needed. An unsupported allegation doesn't cut it.
