The Bonnett/West Telephonic Incident Logs

[LuminousWanderer]

From 2010:

But Mr Boutflour said: “If Nevill had phoned police and the phone was off the hook – how could Jeremy have then had a call from his father?

Because Nevill called Jeremy first - a point that, as far as I can see, has been discussed endlessly on forums like this.

“And who in those circumstances would then take the time to phone their local police station and not dial 999.

A moderator on this very Forum has told me that that is an insignificant detail, not proving anything one way or another.  I agree.  But I would add that, in all the circumstances, Bamber might well have tried to call the local police, believing that was for the best or what hi father might want.  He might also have believed the local police station could respond more quickly.  It is also perfectly possible that Bamber did in fact dial 999 and simply forgot he had done so.

“He was driving at about 10mph to the house and the police went rushing past him – that does not seem to me to be like somebody in a hurry to get there.”

Is Mr Boutflour familiar with the roads in those parts?  My understanding is that it would have been dangerous at speed.  Bamber did drive there and points like this just, to me, smack of scraping the barrel. 

Mr Boutflour, a farmer from Wix, added: “Anybody who gives him a new appeal - well I would seriously question their sanity.

He's entitled to his opinion.  Personally I haven't at this point formed a view one way or the other.

“I find all this quite extraordinary, people forget the gravity of the crime and talk about it as if he went and had a cup of tea or punched somebody in the face.

“Two innocent children were shot in their beds. Wake up, this guy is a bloody murderer.

This would give me pause for reflection if it was being proposed that Bamber should be released, but since there is no evidence to exonerate Bamber, I see no reason for this concern.  If his conviction is unsafe, then the Crown will have the opportunity to re-try their case, won't they.  And if anybody who disbelieves Bamber's guilt is potentially off their rocker, as Boutflour seems to be implying, then what is there to worry about?  Should be an open and shut case.

“He killed five people and why is anybody giving him any credibility?

If he murdered five people, then he should have been hung.  Very unwisely, this country abolished capital punishment, and so he wasn't, and we are where we are.  I didn't set up this Forum.  You did.  I'm just asking questions about the case.  So, Mr Boutflour can try all the emotional blackmail and peer pressure he wants, it won't work on me.

“It is messing about with stupid technicalities and an appeal would be a waste of public time and money.” http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/bamber-is-a-bloody-murderer-says-angry-cousin-1-559104

This last point of Boutflour's I think may be true, but that doesn't mean there isn't a case.  We're still left in the same position.

[LuminousWanderer]

Of course, there was no need or sensible reason why Bonnett would not have mentioned Nevil's call - he was a civilian and not a police officer but at that time, no grand conspiracy would have been required.

I've just provided a possible reason or explanation above.  People like you who mention this point always overlook that Bamber's story was believed for some weeks.  Why was Bamber believed?  If we follow your own logic, wouldn't the operator have immediately come forward and alerted his colleagues to the fact that there was only one call?

You will say that eventually he did and that's why Bamber fell under suspicion, but is that how the process of suspicion happened?

I might change my mind about the evidence if you can show me either that:

(i). Bonnett was not taking calls from the public (or being passed such calls);
OR
(ii). Bonnett alerted the police to the fact that there had only been one call and the circumstances show that this was a factor in investigators changing their minds about what must have happened.

As it is, didn't we have a coroner's hearing and funerals?  What was Bonnett doing while all this was going on?

[APRIL]

But why would Nevill give her age in an emergency call, when he was talking about his own daughter?  Have you forgotten that these were incident logs as well as telephone records and so were constantly updated, with information being passed from West to Bonnett? 

Just to be clear - I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just pointing to a possible explanation that fits within Bamber's account of events.

But if it was assumed for more than a month that Sheila was the killer, then why didn't this same call handler, Bonnett, come forward and tell Essex Police that they'd got it wrong and there was only one emergency call?  And wouldn't the gap of a month also affect memories?  It only sounds odd that people can forget calls when you're focused on the case in retrospect and all the evidence seems perfectly formed, but to the call handler at the time, this was just another emergency call.  Yes, it was probably the biggest incident of his career, and that is something to take into account when looking at memory, but it's not beyond possibility that he could simply have forgot he'd taken a particular call.  He may also be lying, though I personally doubt that.

Of course, if Bonnett wasn't taking calls from the public (or having such calls passed to him) then that changes the evidence.

It sounds as if you're suggesting that Bonnett and West took individual calls from Jeremy and Nevill?  I can see no other reason for Bonnett to need to reveal a call that EP had no knowledge of. You say "emergency call" but Jeremy didn't make an emergency call. He spent 20+ minutes idling his way through the telephone directory and calling local police stations -and his girlfriend- he seems not to have believed it to be an emergency despite telling police that his father had sounded "panicked". Had Nevill called 999 it would probably have been logged in such a way as to make this conversation unnecessary.

[APRIL]

I've just provided a possible reason or explanation above.  People like you who mention this point always overlook that Bamber's story was believed for some weeks.  Why was Bamber believed?  If we follow your own logic, wouldn't the operator have immediately come forward and alerted his colleagues to the fact that there was only one call?

You will say that eventually he did and that's why Bamber fell under suspicion, but is that how the process of suspicion happened?

I might change my mind about the evidence if you can show me either that:

(i). Bonnett was not taking calls from the public (or being passed such calls);
OR
(ii). Bonnett alerted the police to the fact that there had only been one call and the circumstances show that this was a factor in investigators changing their minds about what must have happened.

As it is, didn't we have a coroner's hearing and funerals?  What was Bonnett doing while all this was going on?

That's simple. Jeremy was believed because there was no one to countermand anything he said. He was the only one who could give any sort of version of what transpired in the hours prior to the massacre. It was he, and only he, who was feeding the police information about Sheila and the family -some of it was undoubtedly true- and I think it's reasonable to think they believed him, if only because, at that time, there was no one to contradict him.

[LuminousWanderer]

It completely overrides it, whether you believe it or not -

Again, just to be clear (I keep having to say this because people here insist on standing in one corner or another), I neither believe nor disbelieve it.

Bonnett wrote the log in an odd way but there is nothing on that log that isn't on the other.

That right there is not true.  It takes literally five seconds to see things on one log that aren't on another. 

The ages are different but as Holly has pointed out, Jeremy reported Sheila's age as 26/27.

The explanation for that would be that it is a rolling incident record, and there was at least one call from West to Bonnett, so there was cross-referencing of information.  So what?

Yes, the timings were questioned (and Jeremy has since changed some of his times) however, can you think of any good reason why a civilian police officer wouldn't have mentioned such a call - then or now?

Yes, I've given a reason or explanation above. The question is, did Bonnett come forward and alert his colleagues to the fact that there was only one call?  If he didn't, why didn't he do so?

But Sheila did use Caffell as her surname and both would have known that.

Yes, but you're smoothing over my point about that!  We're talking about an emergency situation in which Jeremy and Nevill were referring to somebody within the family.  Why is it so strange that they would refer to her as a Bamber, especially when she was divorced or separated?  And couldn't that fact also explain why Jeremy simply forgot her surname and just called her a 'Bamber' (assuming he did), and then West passed that to Bonnett?
 Why is that so far-fetched?  And who's to say that either of them even gave a surname?  How do the documents even prove this?  Wouldn't they have just called her 'Sheila' and the police then just assumed she was Bamber too, maybe adding that much later?  It's not as if it mattered much either way.  Is it really beyond the realms of possibility that West and Bonnett just filled in the blanks? 

As I said before, it's highly unlikely that both would forget her name.

As explained above, we can resolve this anomaly without having to propose that either suffered temporary amnesia.

Then we agree? The log is not an account of a call from Nevil?

No, you misunderstand me.  For the purposes of this discussion, I am proposing (as a hypothesis) that the logs are a record of four different calls - two external (Nevill to Bonnett and Jeremy to West)and two internal (West to Bonnett and Bonnett to West). The latter being mirror records of the same call.

It doesn't, but because West wrote 'crazy' and Bonnett used 'berserk' - it doesn't mean that it was a call from Nevil because it seems to be a work preferred by Bonnett, given that he used it again later in the log.

I'm still not following you on that specific point, but it may not matter too much anyway.

[LuminousWanderer]

It sounds as if you're suggesting that Bonnett and West took individual calls from Jeremy and Nevill?  I can see no other reason for Bonnett to need to reveal a call that EP had no knowledge of. You say "emergency call" but Jeremy didn't make an emergency call. He spent 20+ minutes idling his way through the telephone directory and calling local police stations -and his girlfriend- he seems not to have believed it to be an emergency despite telling police that his father had sounded "panicked". Had Nevill called 999 it would probably have been logged in such a way as to make this conversation unnecessary.

I disagree that this is how Bamber would have it. 

To illustrate, a pro-Bamber scenario could work as follows.  Again, this is purely hypothetical, I'm not saying Jeremy is being truthful about the calls:

Nevill calls Jeremy, at which point it wasn't an emergency.  Jeremy tries to call Nevill back, but can't get through.
 Tired and confused and maybe also worried about going to the farm himself, Jeremy wastes time ringing his girlfriend for advice, then decides to call the local police.  In the meantime, it becomes an emergency and Nevill dials 999 and speaks to Bonnett.  Shortly after, Jeremy is finally on the phone to West.  West then speaks to Bonnett, who has already received the call from Nevill and is getting an engaged tone when calling Nevill back.   

[LuminousWanderer]

That's simple. Jeremy was believed because there was no one to countermand anything he said. He was the only one who could give any sort of version of what transpired in the hours prior to the massacre. It was he, and only he, who was feeding the police information about Sheila and the family -some of it was undoubtedly true- and I think it's reasonable to think they believed him, if only because, at that time, there was no one to contradict him.

Sorry, but that doesn't overturn the evidence!  Again, I'm not interested in what you believe or disbelieve and I neither believe nor disbelieve anything about this case myself.  I'm only interested in points that will overturn the evidence. 

[APRIL]

................Yes, I've given a reason or explanation above. The question is, did Bonnett come forward and alert his colleagues to the fact that there was only one call?  If he didn't, why didn't he do so?...................

 

This particular question has been done to death. However the question is worded, the answer remains, how is it possible to talk about, let alone prove, something which never occurred, therefore, why would it have been necessary for Bonnett to make such a statement?

[APRIL]

I disagree that this is how Bamber would have it. 

To illustrate, a pro-Bamber scenario could work as follows.  Again, this is purely hypothetical, I'm not saying Jeremy is being truthful about the calls:

Nevill calls Jeremy, at which point it wasn't an emergency.  Jeremy tries to call Nevill back, but can't get through.
 Tired and confused and maybe also worried about going to the farm himself, Jeremy wastes time ringing his girlfriend for advice, then decides to call the local police.  In the meantime, it becomes an emergency and Nevill dials 999 and speaks to Bonnett.  Shortly after, Jeremy is finally on the phone to West.  West then speaks to Bonnett, who has already received the call from Nevill and is getting an engaged tone when calling Nevill back.

Perhaps Bonnett phoned a friend to ask what sort of action he should take in response to a 999 call? Could be he decided to delete it for fun........................but hang on! Supposing no one had died and Nevill, Chair of local magistrates, had revealed that he'd made a 999 call?

[LuminousWanderer]

This particular question has been done to death. However the question is worded, the answer remains, how is it possible to talk about, let alone prove, something which never occurred, therefore, why would it have been necessary for Bonnett to make such a statement?

No, that's not even the question.  Here you show your own bias.  Think about this logically.  We have a situation where Bamber has just killed five people, in cold blood, but is considered in the clear because he's saying that he got a call from Nevill.  The police had rushed to the scene, in the middle-of-the-night, to find that Sheila had shot everybody and then killed herself.  Surely this Bonnett fellow would immediately be shouting and screaming:

"But I was the operator who dealt with the incident!!  I compiled the incident log!  I recorded only one call and managed the incident.  There was no call from Nevill.  Had there been, I would definitely know about it."

And that, I'm afraid, is the truth - had there been a call from Nevill, Bonnett must either have taken it himself (which explains why he later spoke to West), OR he will have been alerted to such a call.

It follows from this that your negativa position about the logic chain could only work in the absence of evidence of a call from Nevill.

And....oh dear....there is such evidence.  That's a bit of a b.ugger, isn't it?  The crux of it is that there is no reasonable explanation for why Bonnett and West recorded these calls as they did and for why Bonnett did not contradict the police.   

This of course explains why you are so keen to dismiss the idea that the documents record two callers.  If they do, then the whole case collapses - which is very embarrassing, to the say the least.  Not that I'm saying Bamber is innocent.  Please understand - and I need to make this clear - I hold no brief for Jeremy Bamber.  I'm not suggesting he is in any way innocent.

Just to take this discussion further, I've given you two reasons (which I will repeat below) that would cause me to change my mind about this.  If you can show that Bonnett wasn't taking (or being passed) calls from the public or that Bonnett in fact did alert the police that they had got it wrong, then the whole situation would resolve itself and it then becomes a question of: Do we believe Bamber or not?  Is Bamber just unlucky?  Etc., etc.  And then it's conspiracy theory time and alien lizards.

We are, here, at the very crucible of the Crown's case theory. This is why Julie Mugford came into the picture, despite the fact she had nothing probative to say and was in no way a reliable witness.  The police needed somebody to add a bit of 'tinsel' to a very weak case, something that would reinforce Bamber's criminal motives.

[LuminousWanderer]

Perhaps Bonnett phoned a friend to ask what sort of action he should take in response to a 999 call? Could be he decided to delete it for fun........................but hang on! Supposing no one had died and Nevill, Chair of local magistrates, had revealed that he'd made a 999 call?

Again, you show your bias, arrogance, egotism and selective thinking.  Five people died, including two kids, and a man has spent his life in prison.  This isn't funny. 

The analogy you make is presumably tongue-in-cheek, but it doesn't work anyway.  Jeremy Bamber is not claiming that he received a call from Nevill to the effect that Sheila had already started killing people.  Nevill's message was ambiguous.

[LuminousWanderer]

To take this discussion further, I've given you two reasons (which I will repeat below) that would cause me to change my mind about this particular evidence. 

Let me repeat:

I might change my mind about the evidence if you can show me either that:

(i). Bonnett was not taking calls from the public (or being passed such calls);
OR
(ii). Bonnett alerted the police to the fact that there had only been one call and the circumstances show that this was a factor in investigators changing their minds about what must have happened.

Can anybody here produce such evidence?  If so, I'll gladly reconsider.  I hold no brief for Jeremy Bamber.

[APRIL]

Again, you show your bias, arrogance, egotism and selective thinking.  Five people died, including two kids, and a man has spent his life in prison.  This isn't funny. 

The analogy you make is presumably tongue-in-cheek, but it doesn't work anyway.  Jeremy Bamber is not claiming that he received a call from Nevill to the effect that Sheila had already started killing people.  Nevill's message was ambiguous.

And I believe your nonchalance to be deliberately flippant. I'm FULLY aware of how many died and I can't be casual enough about the perpetrator's guilt to find any amusement in it. Indeed, as you claim not to care either way, I'm inclined to think you maybe amusing yourself, however, this forum has been set up for mass debating which makes you free and welcome, as the rest of us, to join in.

I agree that in Nevill's -alleged- call, no reference was made to shooting but it wasn't ambiguous enough to prevent Jeremy from saying he was "panicked" and "he sounded terrified". He even claimed later that he may already have been shot. Still, according to you, it was so ambiguous that Jeremy idled his way through a phone directory rather than call 999.

[Holly Goodhead]

Again, you show your bias, arrogance, egotism and selective thinking.  Five people died, including two kids, and a man has spent his life in prison.  This isn't funny. 

The analogy you make is presumably tongue-in-cheek, but it doesn't work anyway.  Jeremy Bamber is not claiming that he received a call from Nevill to the effect that Sheila had already started killing people.  Nevill's message was ambiguous.

A man who was found guilty in a court of law.

[Caroline]

Again, just to be clear (I keep having to say this because people here insist on standing in one corner or another), I neither believe nor disbelieve it.

That's not the way you are coming over - perhaps that's why you keep having to remind people?

That right there is not true.  It takes literally five seconds to see things on one log that aren't on another. 

Like? I guess you mean one states 'daughter' and the other 'sister'? That's because one it written by West who took a call from Jeremy and the other is from West to Bonnett giving details which supposedly originated from Nevil via Jeremy.

The explanation for that would be that it is a rolling incident record, and there was at least one call from West to Bonnett, so there was cross-referencing of information.  So what?

I agree 'so what' - it's not something I have a problem with.



Yes, I've given a reason or explanation above. The question is, did Bonnett come forward and alert his colleagues to the fact that there was only one call?  If he didn't, why didn't he do so?

No, he didn't, because there wasn't, but why would he when it was NEVER an issue until about 2007 when Bamber suggested that the West log was a new discovery - of course it.s not and was referred to at trial. Are you under am assumption that it has 'always' been thought that Nevil called the police?

Yes, but you're smoothing over my point about that!  We're talking about an emergency situation in which Jeremy and Nevill were referring to somebody within the family.  Why is it so strange that they would refer to her as a Bamber, especially when she was divorced or separated?  And couldn't that fact also explain why Jeremy simply forgot her surname and just called her a 'Bamber' (assuming he did), and then West passed that to Bonnett?
 Why is that so far-fetched?  And who's to say that either of them even gave a surname?  How do the documents even prove this?  Wouldn't they have just called her 'Sheila' and the police then just assumed she was Bamber too, maybe adding that much later?  It's not as if it mattered much either way.  Is it really beyond the realms of possibility that West and Bonnett just filled in the blanks? 

I don't think police fill in the blanks, they take details during a call for a reason. Also, you're saying it was an emergency but Jeremy didn't call 999, so clearly didn't treat it as such.

As explained above, we can resolve this anomaly without having to propose that either suffered temporary amnesia.

I agree, Jeremy couldn't remember her surname (and this is documented) so they just put Bamber, hence why both logs state 'Sheila Bamber'. Two people didn't have amnesia, just one.

No, you misunderstand me.  For the purposes of this discussion, I am proposing (as a hypothesis) that the logs are a record of four different calls - two external (Nevill to Bonnett and Jeremy to West)and two internal (West to Bonnett and Bonnett to West). The latter being mirror records of the same call.

Fair enough, you're not the first or the last but it doesn't stand up.

I'm still not following you on that specific point, but it may not matter too much anyway.

It doesn't - not in the great scheme.