UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: LuminousWanderer on March 23, 2018, 08:35:45 PM
-
This is previous to my original thread: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9273.0
I have now had a chance to re-look at the telephonic records compiled by PC West and the civilian police operator, Malcolm Bonnett.
Here are links to the information I am relying on, all from this website:
Bonnett's statement and document: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=177.0
West's document: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=176.0
West's trial transcript: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=170.0
It's clear that both telephone records were added-to and updated, and they appear to record at least four different phone calls. Bonnett's records a call from Nevill to Bonnett, and a call from West to Bonnett. West's records a call from Bamber to West, and another from West to Bonnett.
One possible issue for Bamber is the reference to PC West in the 'Sender' box at the top left of Bonnett's log - i.e. "CD (1990)". I would assume that is there because Bonnett eventually also took a call from West, but that detail could be interpreted differently.
My question is: Why is it believed that these documents do not record a call from Nevill Bamber? What, specifically, is it that convinces you in this belief?
-
This is previous to my original thread: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9273.0
I have now had a chance to re-look at the telephonic records compiled by PC West and the civilian police operator, Malcolm Bonnett.
Here are links to the information I am relying on, all from this website:
Bonnett's statement and document: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=177.0
West's document: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=176.0
West's trial transcript: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=170.0
It's clear that both telephone records were added-to and updated, and they appear to record at least four different phone calls. Bonnett's records a call from Nevill to Bonnett, and a call from West to Bonnett. West's records a call from Bamber to West, and another from West to Bonnett.
One possible issue for Bamber is the reference to PC West in the 'Sender' box at the top left of Bonnett's log - i.e. "CD (1990)". I would assume that is there because Bonnett eventually also took a call from West, but that detail could be interpreted differently.
My question is: Why is it believed that these documents do not record a call from Nevill Bamber? What, specifically, is it that convinces you in this belief?
Many reasons - the first being that if you refer to the 'sender' information on West's call, the 'sender (or caller) is listed as Jeremy Bamber. If you refer to the same column on the log you believe is a record of a call from Nevil, it states quite clearly that the sender (or caller) is from CD 1990 which is West's call sign. West called Bonnett while still on the phone to Jeremy and passed the details of Jeremy's call over to Bonnett. Neither log contains the surname of Sheila as Caffell, because Jeremy couldn't remember her married name, it isn't really likely that both Jeremy and Nevil would forget her surname. The log even states that the information was passed to 'CD. (West) by the son of Mr Bamber. Bonnett also documents the word 'berserk' instead of .crazy' which is a word used by him again on the back of his log when describing how the dogs were baking at WHF.
-
Many reasons - the first being that if you refer to the 'sender' information on West's call, the 'sender (or caller) is listed as Jeremy Bamber. If you refer to the same column on the log you believe is a record of a call from Nevil, it states quite clearly that the sender (or caller) is from CD 1990 which is West's call sign.
I've already mentioned that in my post above. And I think that can be explained by the fact that the logs are ongoing rather than a static record. I don't believe that the reference to 'CD (1990)' can override what is plainly apparent if you accept these documents at their face: there were two different callers.
West called Bonnett while still on the phone to Jeremy and passed the details of Jeremy's call over to Bonnett.
I know, but that doesn't mean that Nevill didn't earlier call Bonnett. You'll see from West's trial transcript that the call times was a controversy at trial and was the subject of West's cross-examination by Bamber's counsel.
Neither log contains the surname of Sheila as Caffell, because Jeremy couldn't remember her married name, it isn't really likely that both Jeremy and Nevil would forget her surname.
But you resolve that discrepancy yourself in your own comment. We may well ask: was Sheila still being referred to within the immediate family as a "Caffell"? My understanding is that she had split or divorced from Colin. Has it occurred to you that, whatever the formal position, Nevill just called her 'Bamber' and that might explain why Jeremy couldn't remember her married name? It may also be that the two police operators just assumed her name was Bamber, having simply been told it was Jeremy Bamber's sister and Nevill Bamber's daughter. In any case, it doesn't prove that there weren't two callers.
The log even states that the information was passed to 'CD. (West) by the son of Mr Bamber.
To be clear, it's not disputed that Jeremy Bamber spoke to PC West. That's Bamber's own statement. Bearing in mind these were evolving incident logs, it looks to me like Bonnett is recording another call, this time from PC West, who related the call from Jeremy Bamber. That does seem, to me, a reasonable interpretation of the document.
Bonnett also documents the word 'berserk' instead of .crazy' which is a word used by him again on the back of his log when describing how the dogs were baking at WHF.
Sorry but I'm not clear how that works against Bamber?
-
I've already mentioned that in my post above. And I think that can be explained by the fact that the logs are ongoing rather than a static record. I don't believe that the reference to 'CD (1990)' can override what is plainly apparent if you accept these documents at their face: there were two different callers.
I know, but that doesn't mean that Nevill didn't earlier call Bonnett. You'll see from West's trial transcript that the call times was a controversy at trial and was the subject of West's cross-examination by Bamber's counsel.
But you resolve that discrepancy yourself in your own comment. We may well ask: was Sheila still being referred to within the immediate family as a "Caffell"? My understanding is that she had split or divorced from Colin. Has it occurred to you that, whatever the formal position, Nevill just called her 'Bamber' and that might explain why Jeremy couldn't remember her married name? It may also be that the two police operators just assumed her name was Bamber, having simply been told it was Jeremy Bamber's sister and Nevill Bamber's daughter. In any case, it doesn't prove that there weren't two callers.
To be clear, it's not disputed that Jeremy Bamber spoke to PC West. That's Bamber's own statement. Bearing in mind these were evolving incident logs, it looks to me like Bonnett is recording another call, this time from PC West, who related the call from Jeremy Bamber. That does seem, to me, a reasonable interpretation of the document.
Sorry but I'm not clear how that works against Bamber?
"I think you misunderstand the way the legal system works. To be fair, it's a common misunderstanding."
This point was discussed at trial. The jury disagreed with yours (& Jeremy Bamber's) interpretation.
-
I've already mentioned that in my post above. And I think that can be explained by the fact that the logs are ongoing rather than a static record. I don't believe that the reference to 'CD (1990)' can override what is plainly apparent if you accept these documents at their face: there were two different callers.
I know, but that doesn't mean that Nevill didn't earlier call Bonnett. You'll see from West's trial transcript that the call times was a controversy at trial and was the subject of West's cross-examination by Bamber's counsel.
But you resolve that discrepancy yourself in your own comment. We may well ask: was Sheila still being referred to within the immediate family as a "Caffell"? My understanding is that she had split or divorced from Colin. Has it occurred to you that, whatever the formal position, Nevill just called her 'Bamber' and that might explain why Jeremy couldn't remember her married name? It may also be that the two police operators just assumed her name was Bamber, having simply been told it was Jeremy Bamber's sister and Nevill Bamber's daughter. In any case, it doesn't prove that there weren't two callers.
To be clear, it's not disputed that Jeremy Bamber spoke to PC West. That's Bamber's own statement. Bearing in mind these were evolving incident logs, it looks to me like Bonnett is recording another call, this time from PC West, who related the call from Jeremy Bamber. That does seem, to me, a reasonable interpretation of the document.
Sorry but I'm not clear how that works against Bamber?
By cherry picking, as you appear to be doing, you lose focus of the bigger picture and merely go round in the same circles that many of us have witnessed time and time again..
Do you have anything new to bring to the board?
-
Many reasons - the first being that if you refer to the 'sender' information on West's call, the 'sender (or caller) is listed as Jeremy Bamber. If you refer to the same column on the log you believe is a record of a call from Nevil, it states quite clearly that the sender (or caller) is from CD 1990 which is West's call sign. West called Bonnett while still on the phone to Jeremy and passed the details of Jeremy's call over to Bonnett. Neither log contains the surname of Sheila as Caffell, because Jeremy couldn't remember her married name, it isn't really likely that both Jeremy and Nevil would forget her surname. The log even states that the information was passed to 'CD. (West) by the son of Mr Bamber. Bonnett also documents the word 'berserk' instead of .crazy' which is a word used by him again on the back of his log when describing how the dogs were baking at WHF.
I agree.
Not only was SC referrred to as Bamber in both logs but her age was incorrect too. I will have to check back but I think JB said something like 26/27 which probably explains the 26 on one log and 27 on the other. SC was in fact 28.
Even by today's standards this soc would be off the richter scale in UK. Had NB called EP the idea the call handler wouldn't relay such to senior personnel when the whole of EP was aware of events unfolding is IMO unrealistic. JB wasn't a serious suspect for over a month so no reason whatsoever to withhold this info.
-
This is previous to my original thread: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9273.0
I have now had a chance to re-look at the telephonic records compiled by PC West and the civilian police operator, Malcolm Bonnett.
Here are links to the information I am relying on, all from this website:
Bonnett's statement and document: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=177.0
West's document: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=176.0
West's trial transcript: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=170.0
It's clear that both telephone records were added-to and updated, and they appear to record at least four different phone calls. Bonnett's records a call from Nevill to Bonnett, and a call from West to Bonnett. West's records a call from Bamber to West, and another from West to Bonnett.
One possible issue for Bamber is the reference to PC West in the 'Sender' box at the top left of Bonnett's log - i.e. "CD (1990)". I would assume that is there because Bonnett eventually also took a call from West, but that detail could be interpreted differently.
My question is: Why is it believed that these documents do not record a call from Nevill Bamber? What, specifically, is it that convinces you in this belief?
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?
“And who in those circumstances would then take the time to phone their local police station and not dial 999.
“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.”
Mr Boutflour, a farmer from Wix, added: “Anybody who gives him a new appeal - well I would seriously question their sanity.
“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.
“He killed five people and why is anybody giving him any credibility?
“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
-
I agree.
Not only was SC referrred to as Bamber in both logs but her age was incorrect too. I will have to check back but I think JB said something like 26/27 which probably explains the 26 on one log and 27 on the other. SC was in fact 28.
Even by today's standards this soc would be off the richter scale in UK. Had NB called EP the idea the call handler wouldn't relay such to senior personnel when the whole of EP was aware of events unfolding is IMO unrealistic. JB wasn't a serious suspect for over a month so no reason whatsoever to withhold this info.
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 already mentioned that in my post above. And I think that can be explained by the fact that the logs are ongoing rather than a static record. I don't believe that the reference to 'CD (1990)' can override what is plainly apparent if you accept these documents at their face: there were two different callers.
It completely overrides it, whether you believe it or not - Bonnett wrote the log in an odd way but there is nothing on that log that isn't on the other. The ages are different but as Holly has pointed out, Jeremy reported Sheila's age as 26/27.
I know, but that doesn't mean that Nevill didn't earlier call Bonnett. You'll see from West's trial transcript that the call times was a controversy at trial and was the subject of West's cross-examination by Bamber's counsel.
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?
But you resolve that discrepancy yourself in your own comment. We may well ask: was Sheila still being referred to within the immediate family as a "Caffell"? My understanding is that she had split or divorced from Colin. Has it occurred to you that, whatever the formal position, Nevill just called her 'Bamber' and that might explain why Jeremy couldn't remember her married name? It may also be that the two police operators just assumed her name was Bamber, having simply been told it was Jeremy Bamber's sister and Nevill Bamber's daughter. In any case, it doesn't prove that there weren't two callers.
But Sheila did use Caffell as her surname and both would have known that. As I said before, it's highly unlikely that both would forget her name.
To be clear, it's not disputed that Jeremy Bamber spoke to PC West. That's Bamber's own statement. Bearing in mind these were evolving incident logs, it looks to me like Bonnett is recording another call, this time from PC West, who related the call from Jeremy Bamber. That does seem, to me, a reasonable interpretation of the document.
Then we agree? The log is not an account of a call from Nevil?
Sorry but I'm not clear how that works against Bamber?
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.
-
By cherry picking, as you appear to be doing, you lose focus of the bigger picture and merely go round in the same circles that many of us have witnessed time and time again..
Do you have anything new to bring to the board?
Simply because of the way that Bonnett wrote the log, people dismiss everything else. However, had the call been reported by Nevil Bamber, his name would have been in the sender information and there would have been no need to indicate that 'the call was passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber'. The Jury and the defence saw the log and had no problem with it or the accounts of West and Bonnett as to the logs being from one caller - Jeremy Bamber.
-
Simply because of the way that Bonnett wrote the log, people dismiss everything else. However, had the call been reported by Nevil Bamber, his name would have been in the sender information and there would have been no need to indicate that 'the call was passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber'. The Jury and the defence saw the log and had no problem with it or the accounts of West and Bonnett as to the logs being from one caller - Jeremy Bamber.
Succinctly put, as usual, Carolne! 8((()*/
-
Succinctly put, as usual, Carolne! 8((()*/
Cheers me dear 8((()*/
-
"I think you misunderstand the way the legal system works. To be fair, it's a common misunderstanding."
This point was discussed at trial. The jury disagreed with yours (& Jeremy Bamber's) interpretation.
But...
(i). I'm not taking sides.
(ii). My point about you not understanding the way the legal system works relates to a different discussion and stands. You don't. You're an idiot.
-
By cherry picking, as you appear to be doing, you lose focus of the bigger picture and merely go round in the same circles that many of us have witnessed time and time again..
Do you have anything new to bring to the board?
Who's cherry-picking? You could argue that YOU'RE cherry-picking. The case is circumstantial, so it depends on who is talking and what their motive is.
My motive is neither for not against Bamber. I'm no interest in cherry-picking, I'm just finding reasons why the evidence might favour him in order to stress-test the case against him, which is a different thing.
You're misunderstanding why I'm here and the purpose of my posts and it's causing needless issues.
-
I agree.
Not only was SC referrred to as Bamber in both logs but her age was incorrect too. I will have to check back but I think JB said something like 26/27 which probably explains the 26 on one log and 27 on the other. SC was in fact 28.
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.
Even by today's standards this soc would be off the richter scale in UK. Had NB called EP the idea the call handler wouldn't relay such to senior personnel when the whole of EP was aware of events unfolding is IMO unrealistic. JB wasn't a serious suspect for over a month so no reason whatsoever to withhold this info.
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
................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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
He took emergency calls. Why would he have had to state that there was only one call, it wasn't until 2007 (ish) that the suggestion of Nevil calling the police came into being. If there had been two, he would have said so.
-
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?
People like me? Bit rude!
No, I haven't over looked anything of the sort - but I will repeat that Bonnett would have no reason to come forward to say there was only one call because it was never suggested that there were two until around 2007. People like me, knew that fact which is why I asked 'people like you' that question. I assumed you knew the facts.
-
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.
What do you make of this phone call?
FEBRUARY 2018 - Terrified woman 'receives prison phone call from notorious mass murderer Jeremy Bamber'
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/terrified-woman-receives-phone-call-12094569
-
What do you make of this phone call?
FEBRUARY 2018 - Terrified woman 'receives prison phone call from notorious mass murderer Jeremy Bamber'
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/terrified-woman-receives-phone-call-12094569
It's completely irrelevant, even if true. That's what I make of it.
And it's not even clear from the article that Bamber made the call or did anything wrong.
Why do you keep posting off-topic?
-
He took emergency calls. Why would he have had to state that there was only one call, it wasn't until 2007 (ish) that the suggestion of Nevil calling the police came into being. If there had been two, he would have said so.
Are you accepting that Bonnett did take calls from the public? Has that point been established?
I don't agree with your premise about Bonnett. The issue here is one of interpretation. What I'm trying to isolate is whether there is a gap in the chain of logic when we apply YOUR interpretation to the Bonnett/West records.
The whole point is that if there were two calls, Bonnett needn't have said anything as the telephone logs he compiled in conjunction with West reflected the position accurately. If, on the other hand, there was only one caller, Jeremy, I am wondering why that might not have been brought to somebody's attention long before Bamber came under suspicion, as it seems to me a pretty telling indicator that something was not right with Bamber's story.
Just to be clear, I am not necessarily suggesting that Bonnett personally had a duty to raise the matter. He was a civilian police telephone operator, not a sworn constable, but if we accept that your reading of the documents is right, it does seem odd that this wasn't raised.
I think it is possible that Nevill did call and, perhaps briefly, got through to Bonnett, and for any one or combination of reasons, Bonnett has forgotten this as the records were later interpreted as 'one caller' rather than two.
One final point, for now: I don't believe that it took until 2007 for it to be suggested that Nevill called. The idea of Nevill dialling 999 or otherwise alerting the authorities is a perfectly obvious line of inquiry. What looks more likely to me is that no evidence of such a call had been disclosed, and therefore whether or not such a call had been made could not be established by the defence. The Bonnett log has subsequently been made available at some point, and this does, on its face and when read in conjunction with the West document, suggest there were two callers, not one.
I ought to add that I do accept that Bamber's defence does not rely on Nevill having made a call, and yes, I should have taken that into account in my previous post above when I discussed Bonnett specifically.
-
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.
So you don't care that he murdered five members of his family. You're only interested in finding a loophole which will get him released?
-
I am impartial. Can you show how I'm not, please? Can you see into my mind the same way that you have second sight and can somehow see what happened at White House Farm?
Your posts are nothing of the sort!
Jeremy Bamber and people like him are of a mindeset where they think - "if no one sees me murder, I will get away with it and be able to say I am innocent if I'm caught.
No one has suggested we can see into your mind yet you are making all sorts of wild claims in relation to your beliefs of OUR thought processes.
Can you not see your double standards?
-
If it is your objective to learn more about this case, you would do very well to engage with both Caroline and Holly. They have forgotten more about this case than most of us will ever know.
-
So you don't care that he murdered five members of his family. You're only interested in finding a loophole which will get him released?
No, you don't understand. The law says that in the absence of evidence that exonerates him, the only question to consider is whether the convictions are legally safe. Hence my questions. How many times must I repeat this?
-
Your posts are nothing of the sort!
Jeremy Bamber and people like him are of a mindeset where they think - "if no one sees me murder, I will get away with it and be able to say I am innocent if I'm caught.
No one has suggested we can see into your mind yet you are making all sorts of wild claims in relation to your beliefs of OUR thought processes.
Can you not see your double standards?
LOL. Again, this poster simply refuses to understand the nature of the legal process or the real questions involved. This poster is emotional and wishes to adopt a partisan attitude to the case. It's her perfect right to do so, but it's not relevant to my threads and posts on this Forum. It shows a misunderstanding of why I am here. I'm not here to argue for Bamber. If some of my comments seem to favour him, that's only because it is necessary to stress test the Crown's case in order to reach an objective conclusion about it. That's the way the process works!
-
If it is your objective to learn more about this case, you would do very well to engage with both Caroline and Holly. They have forgotten more about this case than most of us will ever know.
Again, I have set out why I am here. My position is eminently reasonable: I don't take a view for or against. I have made this clear. I have taken on board what people on here say. If my posts seem aggressive or defensive at times, this is only in response to the way I am being treated by individuals who refuse to read my posts properly and deliberately misconstrue my intentions in order to create needless drama. Sorry, but if you look carefully back at my original post on this Forum, you will see I outlined in full and in clear, plain language why I am here - and you will then perhaps recognise the reasons for my frustration.
-
Again, let me repeat the question that remains about this evidence:
Did Bonnett take calls from the public? Has that point been established?
I would kindly and respectfully ask that there are no further posts to this thread that are off-topic. Please just answer the question.
Thank you very much.
-
LOL. Again, this poster simply refuses to understand the nature of the legal process or the real questions involved. This poster is emotional and wishes to adopt a partisan attitude to the case. It's her perfect right to do so, but it's not relevant to my threads and posts on this Forum. It shows a misunderstanding of why I am here. I'm not here to argue for Bamber. If some of my comments seem to favour him, that's only because it is necessary to stress test the Crown's case in order to reach an objective conclusion about it. That's the way the process works!
In you opinion!
How and why do you think Simon Hall was able to dupe so many over such a lengthy period of time?
Where did the arguments come from in relation to substantiating the then beliefs he had been wrongly convicted?
How and why did the CCRC refer his case back to the court of appeal?
Why was it possible for some to question the validity of his confession?
Hall's conviction was calculated to 13 years. The motive was argued by the prosecution to have been a burglary gone wrong. His sentence reflected this.
What are your thoughts on the safety of that conviction, baring in mind, like Bamber, the arguments were based on circumstantial evidence; many of which we learned were inaccurate/wrong.
The murder was sexually motivated. NOTHiNG whatsoever to do with a burglary!
The police chose to not follow this theory; had they have done and Hall was found guilty would have meant his sentence would have been considerably longer than a 13 year tarif. He would have been facing 20 plus years.
I could go on...
What are your thoughts on the safety of this conviction? The Crowns case was flawed on so many levels. Numerous witnesses lied when giving evidence - witness statements are reflective of this.. Etc etc...
Put your emotions to one side, if you are able and let's debate.
My knowledge on both these cases is vast. My knowledge of the criminal justice system is equally so; based on my first hand experience with the Hall case. I lived it.
-
Are you accepting that Bonnett did take calls from the public? Has that point been established?
I don't agree with your premise about Bonnett. The issue here is one of interpretation. What I'm trying to isolate is whether there is a gap in the chain of logic when we apply YOUR interpretation to the Bonnett/West records.
The whole point is that if there were two calls, Bonnett needn't have said anything as the telephone logs he compiled in conjunction with West reflected the position accurately. If, on the other hand, there was only one caller, Jeremy, I am wondering why that might not have been brought to somebody's attention long before Bamber came under suspicion, as it seems to me a pretty telling indicator that something was not right with Bamber's story.
Just to be clear, I am not necessarily suggesting that Bonnett personally had a duty to raise the matter. He was a civilian police telephone operator, not a sworn constable, but if we accept that your reading of the documents is right, it does seem odd that this wasn't raised.
I think it is possible that Nevill did call and, perhaps briefly, got through to Bonnett, and for any one or combination of reasons, Bonnett has forgotten this as the records were later interpreted as 'one caller' rather than two.
One final point, for now: I don't believe that it took until 2007 for it to be suggested that Nevill called. The idea of Nevill dialling 999 or otherwise alerting the authorities is a perfectly obvious line of inquiry. What looks more likely to me is that no evidence of such a call had been disclosed, and therefore whether or not such a call had been made could not be established by the defence. The Bonnett log has subsequently been made available at some point, and this does, on its face and when read in conjunction with the West document, suggest there were two callers, not one.
I ought to add that I do accept that Bamber's defence does not rely on Nevill having made a call, and yes, I should have taken that into account in my previous post above when I discussed Bonnett specifically.
For you to believe what you have just written above (and you're forcing the notion home), you think Bamber is innocent and as such, are not a fence sitter.
I have already stated that 'HE TOOK CALLS'.
Anyway. your reasoning is that in one of the biggest murder cases of the 20th century, Bonnett forgot that he spoke to Nevil Bamber and held/holds the key to solving a grave MOJ? He hasn't read anything about Bamber since and has completely missed both Bamber and the CT's claims that Nevil called the police and spoke to him?
There is no reason for Bonnett to mention a call he didn't receive but his statements give an account of what took place, one call from PC 1990, the call was 'STARTED' recorded and documented on the appropriate form, if another call existed (because he maintains that THEE call was from West and ONLY West), he'd have a memory and a record of it. The log is a rolling account which he mentions in his statement but it STARTED with the call from West.
-
It's completely irrelevant, even if true. That's what I make of it.
And it's not even clear from the article that Bamber made the call or did anything wrong.
Why do you keep posting off-topic?
The women in the article said she'd never heard of Jeremy Bamber. When she googled him and learned of his crimes she was "terrified." No mention of him been an alledged MOJ? I thought that fact was interesting. Plus the fact the prisoner who she's in contact with is in the same prison. Clearly the other inmates don't believe him to be an MOJ either!?
-
Are you accepting that Bonnett did take calls from the public? Has that point been established?
I don't agree with your premise about Bonnett. The issue here is one of interpretation. What I'm trying to isolate is whether there is a gap in the chain of logic when we apply YOUR interpretation to the Bonnett/West records.
The whole point is that if there were two calls, Bonnett needn't have said anything as the telephone logs he compiled in conjunction with West reflected the position accurately. If, on the other hand, there was only one caller, Jeremy, I am wondering why that might not have been brought to somebody's attention long before Bamber came under suspicion, as it seems to me a pretty telling indicator that something was not right with Bamber's story.
Just to be clear, I am not necessarily suggesting that Bonnett personally had a duty to raise the matter. He was a civilian police telephone operator, not a sworn constable, but if we accept that your reading of the documents is right, it does seem odd that this wasn't raised.
I think it is possible that Nevill did call and, perhaps briefly, got through to Bonnett, and for any one or combination of reasons, Bonnett has forgotten this as the records were later interpreted as 'one caller' rather than two.
One final point, for now: I don't believe that it took until 2007 for it to be suggested that Nevill called. The idea of Nevill dialling 999 or otherwise alerting the authorities is a perfectly obvious line of inquiry. What looks more likely to me is that no evidence of such a call had been disclosed, and therefore whether or not such a call had been made could not be established by the defence. The Bonnett log has subsequently been made available at some point, and this does, on its face and when read in conjunction with the West document, suggest there were two callers, not one.
I ought to add that I do accept that Bamber's defence does not rely on Nevill having made a call, and yes, I should have taken that into account in my previous post above when I discussed Bonnett specifically.
When did Jeremy Bambers campaign go public?
Why don't you look for yourself in order to find out when it was suggested Neville called as opposed to dismissing it because it doesn't sit with your theory
-
When did Jeremy Bambers campaign go public?
Why don't you look for yourself in order to find out when it was suggested Neville called as opposed to dismissing it because it doesn't sit with your theory
Just checked and it was 2004 (not 2007) that it was claimed a second log was discovered which is when the phone call from Nevil became part of the campaign. LW can believe what he likes, he asked questions -you can't just pick and choose the parts you like and build the rest on 'what ifs'.
-
Just checked and it was 2004 (not 2007) that it was claimed a second log was discovered which is when the phone call from Nevil became part of the campaign. LW can believe what he likes, he asked questions -you can't just pick and choose the parts you like and build the rest on 'what ifs'.
Do you know who discovered the log?
It's clear that Bamber only ran with this when one of two of his supporters became excited about it. Bit like the Higham and Zenith burglaries in the Hall case and the Portuguese guy who was murdered in Norwich.
If Jeremy Bamber were innocent and his father HAD called, Bamber would have been shouting this from the roof tops from the start. He didn't! That's a fact.
One only need refer to some of Aunt A's previous posts, when, according to her, it was just her and Bamber in the early years. He was probably just glad to have a someone. Anyone would have done IMO. From what little I know of AA she seems like a nice person. However I'm of the firm belief she was manipulated by Bamber to do his bidding and I know from having contact with her once or twice in the past she went through hell for him. Same as many of the people he's had around him. He would turn one against the other and caused no end of trouble for them all. I witnessed a lot of this on Facebook back in 2008/09/10.
It's a shame AA doesn't post these days. I believe her and people like her could give further exposés on Bamber.
-
Just checked and it was 2004 (not 2007) that it was claimed a second log was discovered which is when the phone call from Nevil became part of the campaign. LW can believe what he likes, he asked questions -you can't just pick and choose the parts you like and build the rest on 'what ifs'.
Nearly 20 years before he decided to promote this manufactured theory in other words
-
Nearly 20 years before he decided to promote this manufactured theory in other words
Here's a post made by AA
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358356.html#msg358356
"That's a really tough question to answer, coming from you.
You've been in my situation - I remember you standing up for Simon, alone at times.
You were steadfast in your view.....and your feelings only confirmed what you thought.
I felt that way about Jeremy too.
I've said this so many times on here.....I remember the early days - before the revelations.
I'm certain he had absolutely no idea of what exactly happened that night.
The lies we had been fed by the police did not make sense.....nothing fitted into place.
Together we went over and over the same things, hoping that one of us could (as there was only two of us then), might pick up on something we'd overlooked previously.
I was there when the new revelations came about also - he would phone me upon reading the new evidence .... We would then try to piece that new information together and then he would find further information and again we would try to form anther picture of what happened.
That picture changed many times as more information was being revealed.
He was very emotional when he began to understand what had happened. He was angry, sad, excited, relieved......we both tried to get our heads round the new info.
-
Here's a post made by AA
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358356.html#msg358356
"That's a really tough question to answer, coming from you.
You've been in my situation - I remember you standing up for Simon, alone at times.
You were steadfast in your view.....and your feelings only confirmed what you thought.
I felt that way about Jeremy too.
I've said this so many times on here.....I remember the early days - before the revelations.
I'm certain he had absolutely no idea of what exactly happened that night.
The lies we had been fed by the police did not make sense.....nothing fitted into place.
Together we went over and over the same things, hoping that one of us could (as there was only two of us then), might pick up on something we'd overlooked previously.
I was there when the new revelations came about also - he would phone me upon reading the new evidence .... We would then try to piece that new information together and then he would find further information and again we would try to form anther picture of what happened.
That picture changed many times as more information was being revealed.
He was very emotional when he began to understand what had happened. He was angry, sad, excited, relieved......we both tried to get our heads round the new info.
AA confirms when it was just her and Bamber there was nothing to support his claims of innocence - because he wasn't innocent.
It wasn't until more people got on board, Mike T for example, that Bamber started manufacturing theories based on the flaws and discrepancies in the case files.
I believe the emotions to which AA refers were her emotions being mimicked by Bamber.
AA goes on to post -
"....and I was just gullible! Possibly. Nothing can be ruled out
(Hope she's doing okay!)
-
Just checked and it was 2004 (not 2007) that it was claimed a second log was discovered which is when the phone call from Nevil became part of the campaign. LW can believe what he likes, he asked questions -you can't just pick and choose the parts you like and build the rest on 'what ifs'.
Bamber was handed five life sentences, with a recommendation that he stay in prison for at least 25 years without parole. After the sentencing, Mr Justice Drake said:
"I find it difficult to foresee whether it will ever be safe to release someone who can shoot two little boys as they lie asleep in their beds.”
He also noted the problems that had taken place during initial enquiries and throughout the main police investigations.
The first major error in this case was the police allowing the house be cleared shortly after the killings. The house itself had been cleaned and the carpets and bedclothes burned on instruction of Bamber.
Bamber’s fingerprints were eventually discovered on the bible and gun left on Sheila’s body, but were missed during the initial enquiries.
It was also revealed that while Bamber had said that he received a panic-stricken phone call from his father, Neville had actually been shot in the throat in the upstairs of the house and couldn’t have made such a call.
This catalogue of blunders led the trial judge Mr Justice Drake to comment “The perfunctory examination is only explicable because the police thought there was nothing to solve.
I'd like to hear what LM has to say about the evidence deduced at trial in relation to NB's gunshot wound to the throat and the alledged phonecall.
-
Do you know who discovered the log?
It's clear that Bamber only ran with this when one of two of his supporters became excited about it. Bit like the Higham and Zenith burglaries in the Hall case and the Portuguese guy who was murdered in Norwich.
If Jeremy Bamber were innocent and his father HAD called, Bamber would have been shouting this from the roof tops from the start. He didn't! That's a fact.
One only need refer to some of Aunt A's previous posts, when, according to her, it was just her and Bamber in the early years. He was probably just glad to have a someone. Anyone would have done IMO. From what little I know of AA she seems like a nice person. However I'm of the firm belief she was manipulated by Bamber to do his bidding and I know from having contact with her once or twice in the past she went through hell for him. Same as many of the people he's had around him. He would turn one against the other and caused no end of trouble for them all. I witnessed a lot of this on Facebook back in 2008/09/10.
It's a shame AA doesn't post these days. I believe her and people like her could give further exposés on Bamber.
It was never lost Steph. Most people think it was the Bonnett log that was supposed to be newly discovered because that's the one that looks like it might have been a call from Nebil (on the surface), however, it's the West log.
-
Again, let me repeat the question that remains about this evidence:
Did Bonnett take calls from the public? Has that point been established?
I would kindly and respectfully ask that there are no further posts to this thread that are off-topic. Please just answer the question.
Thank you very much.
Minutes: Miles:
Chelmsford 0.39 21.1
Maldon 0.20 7.2
Tiptree 0.10 3.8
Witham 0.27 11.1
Colchester 0.26 13
Why do you believe Nevill would call the 5th furthest away police station ?
There is no possibility Bamber would have done this, if innocent. However it has been accepted from day one he did.
Who would call their 5th furthest away police station after being awoken by a relative at 3am ? No one.
Who would call the 5th furthest away police station if their daughter is waiving around a rifle in her nightie & bare feet ? No one.
-
Tolleshunt D'arcy is another police station which existed in 1985. This would have been the nearest police station to WHF although I don't know the exact miles/minutes. So Chelmsford was the 6th furthest away police station.
Bamber asked the police to pick him up, to enhance the impression he had just been woken at home by Nevill's call. This must have been most likely possible if a police car was dispatched from Chelmsford.
-
Tolleshunt D'arcy is another police station which existed in 1985. This would have been the nearest police station to WHF although I don't know the exact miles/minutes. So Chelmsford was the 6th furthest away police station.
Bamber asked the police to pick him up, to enhance the impression he had just been woken at home by Nevill's call. This must have been most likely possible if a police car was dispatched from Chelmsford.
It is 'possible' that he chose Chelmsford simply because it was listed first? However, that doesn't explain why he didn't call 999, which he wouldn't have needed to look up.
-
It is 'possible' that he chose Chelmsford simply because it was listed first? However, that doesn't explain why he didn't call 999, which he wouldn't have needed to look up.
Did you ask him ?
Two policemen testified Bamber said he had phoned Witham. Which would have been listed last.
I would not go through a phone directory from A-Z until I found a police station I believed was within 25 miles from me.
I know my nearest police station, which similar to Tolleshunt D'arcy for Bamber, is walking distance. After that I know nothing & would have to dial 999.
-
I have never read why Bamber rang Chelmsford police station. Just read that 'it didn't occur to him to phone farm workers' & 'he didn't think it would make any difference' in response times' by calling Chelmsford instead of 999.
Bamber could have gone straight to 'C' in the phone directory, knowing Chelmsford would come under 'C'. The problem is it was the 6th furthest away police station & over 20 miles away. Colchester was also nearer.
Who would know & then search for their 6th furthest away police station in an emergency ? It can only be that Bamber wanted to increase his chances of being picked up.
-
Did you ask him ?
Two policemen testified Bamber said he had phoned Witham. Which would have been listed last.
I would not go through a phone directory from A-Z until I found a police station I believed was within 25 miles from me.
I know my nearest police station, which similar to Tolleshunt D'arcy for Bamber, is walking distance. After that I know nothing & would have to dial 999.
No, that isn't a question I asked and I agree - I don't think there any excuse for him not to have dialled 999 - I don't believe he would have been in shock if he did receive a call. I think it would have been a natural reaction to dial 999 and then go over there - without hesitation.
-
Bamber has already agreed he drove very slowly to WHF & was overtaken by a police car. He testified he drove slowly as he wanted to arrive after the police.
He could now publically say he wanted the police to pick him up because he was scared. But in the heat of the moment wouldn't he have still dialled 999 or Tolleshunt D'arcy & asked to be picked up ? That is if the 'getting picked up' thought actually crossed his mind in the panic.
Ringing Chelmsford was obviously pre planned. The further out a police car is dispatched from, the more chance there was of it making a small diversion to pick Bamber up.
-
I have never read why Bamber rang Chelmsford police station. Just read that 'it didn't occur to him to phone farm workers' & 'he didn't think it would make any difference' in response times' by calling Chelmsford instead of 999.
Bamber could have gone straight to 'C' in the phone directory, knowing Chelmsford would come under 'C'. The problem is it was the 6th furthest away police station & over 20 miles away. Colchester was also nearer.
Who would know & then search for their 6th furthest away police station in an emergency ? It can only be that Bamber wanted to increase his chances of being picked up.
I can't imagine that it never occurred to him, that had he called 999 immediately, he wouldn't have needed to waste 20+ minutes before contacting Chelmsford. It negates his supposition re there being no difference in response times.
-
Bamber has already agreed he drove very slowly to WHF & was overtaken by a police car. He testified he drove slowly as he wanted to arrive after the police.
He could now publically say he wanted the police to pick him up because he was scared. But in the heat of the moment wouldn't he have still dialled 999 or Tolleshunt D'arcy & asked to be picked up ? That is if the 'getting picked up' thought actually crossed his mind in the panic.
Ringing Chelmsford was obviously pre planned. The further out a police car is dispatched from, the more chance there was of it making a small diversion to pick Bamber up.
It must follow, that if he was so scared that it caused him to drive slowly for fear of what he'd find, he'd suspected the situation grave enough to call 999 immediately rather than waste time looking for police stations which were open.
-
My question is: Why is it believed that these documents do not record a call from Nevill Bamber? What, specifically, is it that convinces you in this belief?
Its a tricky thing to get your head around. In a nut shell the timings do not mesh for the documents to record a call from Nevill Bamber.
If Nevill rang the police at 3.26am and then Jeremy rang the police at 3.35am. Jeremy would then need to have travelled to the farm at a speed of around 90mph to get to the destination at the time recorded.
I while back I produced a timeline to try and clarify the events. This timeline also contains alternate times for Julie Mugford (in purple)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8425.0;attach=10298
-
My question is: Why is it believed that these documents do not record a call from Nevill Bamber? What, specifically, is it that convinces you in this belief?
I'm at a loss as to why it might be believed possible to record something which has never occurred, even more, how such a non occurrence might be worded.
-
Bamber has already agreed he drove very slowly to WHF & was overtaken by a police car. He testified he drove slowly as he wanted to arrive after the police.
He could now publically say he wanted the police to pick him up because he was scared. But in the heat of the moment wouldn't he have still dialled 999 or Tolleshunt D'arcy & asked to be picked up ? That is if the 'getting picked up' thought actually crossed his mind in the panic.
Ringing Chelmsford was obviously pre planned. The further out a police car is dispatched from, the more chance there was of it making a small diversion to pick Bamber up.
Once the Bamber case is stripped back to its bare bones and the con artist/murderer is exposed, there really isn't a whole lot left - other than the truth and facts as they stand.
-
Its a tricky thing to get your head around. In a nut shell the timings do not mesh for the documents to record a call from Nevill Bamber.
If Nevill rang the police at 3.26am and then Jeremy rang the police at 3.35am. Jeremy would then need to have travelled to the farm at a speed of around 90mph to get to the destination at the time recorded.
I while back I produced a timeline to try and clarify the events. This timeline also contains alternate times for Julie Mugford (in purple)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8425.0;attach=10298
Nothing tricky about it - unless you are out to con people of course.
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
-
Its a tricky thing to get your head around. In a nut shell the timings do not mesh for the documents to record a call from Nevill Bamber.
If Nevill rang the police at 3.26am and then Jeremy rang the police at 3.35am. Jeremy would then need to have travelled to the farm at a speed of around 90mph to get to the destination at the time recorded.
I while back I produced a timeline to try and clarify the events. This timeline also contains alternate times for Julie Mugford (in purple)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8425.0;attach=10298
Good post - thanks.
But...I'm not convinced that the timings make it impossible. Thanks for the post - really - but I do not believe you have quite shown that a call from Nevill was impossible.
(I would like to say otherwise, as it would make things easier just to say that Jeremy has no case!).
-
I'm at a loss as to why it might be believed possible to record something which has never occurred, even more, how such a non occurrence might be worded.
Then you miss my point and do not attempt to answer my question, which is specifically why you would say there was no call from Nevill. You jump to the assumption there was no call. You may well be right (and I might even privately agree with you), but I am not interested in assuming things.
Also, even if we accept that the telephone logs only record one caller, it does not follow that there was no call from Nevill (though I would agree that that would make such a call quite unlikely).
-
If Jeremy Bamber were innocent and his father HAD called, Bamber would have been shouting this from the roof tops from the start. He didn't! That's a fact.
I believe you miss two crucial points:
(i). Bamber's original defence did not rely on Nevill having dialled 999 or otherwise contacted the authorities; and,
(ii). the Bonnett telephone log was not produced at trial. It is fresh evidence.
-
It was also revealed that while Bamber had said that he received a panic-stricken phone call from his father, Neville had actually been shot in the throat in the upstairs of the house and couldn’t have made such a call.
This catalogue of blunders led the trial judge Mr Justice Drake to comment “The perfunctory examination is only explicable because the police thought there was nothing to solve.
The fact that Nevill was shot in the throat does not disprove that he made a phone call during the incident. I hope I don't need to explain why.
-
For you to believe what you have just written above (and you're forcing the notion home), you think Bamber is innocent and as such, are not a fence sitter.
No, it means I'm testing the case (one aspect of it), which is what an objective person might do. I don't like the phrase 'fence sitter'. I'm not that. I am willing to make a judgement of my own about the case, but as I've explained, it won't be on the question of guilt or innocence. I can't judge that. The only question I think any of us can answer here is whether there might be a prospect of a further successful referral of the case to the CCRC. After taking a look at information about the case available online, my initial tentative view was (and still is) that there may be some basis for saying his convictions are legally unsafe, but I am open to changing my mind about that.
I have already stated that 'HE TOOK CALLS'.
That doesn't answer my question, nor does Bonnett's statement. I want to know whether he took calls from the public. His statement does imply that he did - there's reference to 'General Exchange' calls - but it's not clear.
Anyway. your reasoning is that in one of the biggest murder cases of the 20th century, Bonnett forgot that he spoke to Nevil Bamber and held/holds the key to solving a grave MOJ? He hasn't read anything about Bamber since and has completely missed both Bamber and the CT's claims that Nevil called the police and spoke to him?
I've already allowed for this and explained a possible way of resolving that problem. It boils down to faulty memory and the way that people remember things when they are under social or professional pressure to adopt a particular narrative. To be clear: it is NOT my view that Bonnett lied at any stage.
There is no reason for Bonnett to mention a call he didn't receive but his statements give an account of what took place, one call from PC 1990, the call was 'STARTED' recorded and documented on the appropriate form, if another call existed (because he maintains that THEE call was from West and ONLY West), he'd have a memory and a record of it. The log is a rolling account which he mentions in his statement but it STARTED with the call from West.
Of course, but the telephone logs don't record it that way. There does seem to be an eagerness on here to adopt the uncritical view that it was one caller. I agree that it may well have been only one caller, but this overlooks the vital question of doubt. The documents create doubt. For me, the real question is the quality of doubt that has arisen from the documentary inconsistencies: is it merely residual doubt or does it rise to the level of reasonable doubt?
In any event, I am not willing just to go along with the crowd on this point. You mention that this was "one of the biggest murder cases of the 20th. century" [your words]. Indeed it was, and that being the case, police officers and civilian operators should carry out their tasks competently and record things properly, with scrupulous accuracy. That did not happen here. I am not saying that they can be expected to act perfectly under these immense pressures - that would be unreasonable - and I am not saying that they should have to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' to the absolute nth; but I am wondering why one or other document was not amended and corrected at a later stage - perhaps with suitable annotations and a photostat copy of the original version memo'ed to the new version - to show that there was only one caller. Wouldn't that have been crucial? You will say that Bonnett could not be expected to correct a document to reflect a call he never received, an explanation that sounds cogent and logical on its face but misses the point that Bonnett did write up the call in such a way that, when you compare it to West's document, it looks like two callers.
-
No, it means I'm testing the case (one aspect of it), which is what an objective person might do. I don't like the phrase 'fence sitter'. I'm not that. I am willing to make a judgement of my own about the case, but as I've explained, it won't be on the question of guilt or innocence. I can't judge that. The only question I think any of us can answer here is whether there might be a prospect of a further successful referral of the case to the CCRC. After taking a look at information about the case available online, my initial tentative view was (and still is) that there may be some basis for saying his convictions are legally unsafe, but I am open to changing my mind about that.
Testing it how? You don't seem open to anything, just your own ideas. I used to think Bamber was innocent - the calls and the logs were always a problem for me and I briefly believed Nevil may have called simply because of the way the log was written. However, nothing on the log (other then the language Bonnett used) points to anything of the sort.
That doesn't answer my question, nor does Bonnett's statement. I want to know whether he took calls from the public. His statement does imply that he did - there's reference to 'General Exchange' calls - but it's not clear.
Of course, he took calls from the public - he says so! But he wasn't sat there on his own, there were other operators.
I've already allowed for this and explained a possible way of resolving that problem. It boils down to faulty memory and the way that people remember things when they are under social or professional pressure to adopt a particular narrative. To be clear: it is NOT my view that Bonnett lied at any stage.
I don't for one moment accept your reasoning above - there is no way he would forget taking a call from Nevil - the calls are the crux of the case. If there was a call from Nevil then Jeremy Bamber is innocent - if not, then he isn't. Also, Bonnett has the log as an aide memoir and he would have had to totally invent a new memory to declare that the information came from West. It just doesn't hold water ot make any sense.
Of course, but the telephone logs don't record it that way. There does seem to be an eagerness on here to adopt the uncritical view that it was one caller. I agree that it may well have been only one caller, but this overlooks the vital question of doubt. The documents create doubt. For me, the real question is the quality of doubt that has arisen from the documentary inconsistencies: is it merely residual doubt or does it rise to the level of reasonable doubt?
They only create doubt because of the way Bonnett chose to log the information. It clearly states that West was the caller! It's not even the Bonnett log that is 'supposedly' newly discovered, it's the one written by West.
In any event, I am not willing just to go along with the crowd on this point. You mention that this was "one of the biggest murder cases of the 20th. century" [your words]. Indeed it was, and that being the case, police officers and civilian operators should carry out their tasks competently and record things properly, with scrupulous accuracy. That did not happen here. I am not saying that they can be expected to act perfectly under these immense pressures - that would be unreasonable - and I am not saying that they should have to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' to the absolute nth; but I am wondering why one or other document was not amended and corrected at a later stage - perhaps with suitable annotations and a photostat copy of the original version memo'ed to the new version - to show that there was only one caller. Wouldn't that have been crucial? You will say that Bonnett could not be expected to correct a document to reflect a call he never received, an explanation that sounds cogent and logical on its face but misses the point that Bonnett did write up the call in such a way that, when you compare it to West's document, it looks like two callers.
You're right, I will say that Bonnett couldn't be expected to know that years later, it would be claimed that there were two calls and he doesn't need to correct anything because his statement makes it clear where his information came from and the log also states that the call came from CD 1990.
-
I can't reply to Caroline's post above, due to the way she has formatted it, but all I will say is that I am not closed to the anti-Bamber arguments. I have already explained why my approach to this case is the way it is. It is not bias one way or the other. It's simple really: if somebody is testing a case, in the manner of a defence lawyer, they will try to find reasons why the Crown's case is wrong. That in itself doesn't allude to one's private views, nor does it necessarily augur a particular conclusion.
-
I can't reply to Caroline's post above, due to the way she has formatted it, but all I will say is that I am not closed to the anti-Bamber arguments. I have already explained why my approach to this case is the way it is. It is not bias one way or the other. It's simple really: if somebody is testing a case, in the manner of a defence lawyer, they will try to find reasons why the Crown's case is wrong. That in itself doesn't allude to one's private views, nor does it necessarily augur a particular conclusion.
It's not that you're questioning things, that's fair enough. However, I very much doubt that the suggestion that Bonnett simply 'forgot' he not only spoke to Nevil but logged a call from him. Later recalling that it wasn't from Nevil at all, it was from a police officer, someone he'd had never met and yet he knew the guys call sign.
-
It's not that you're questioning things, that's fair enough. However, I very much doubt that the suggestion that Bonnett simply 'forgot' he not only spoke to Nevil but logged a call from him. Later recalling that it wasn't from Nevil at all, it was from a police officer, someone he'd had never met and yet he knew the guys call sign.
Actually I do agree with you that, on the face of it, it is doubtful that Bonnett could have forgotten, but I do not accept that it is impossible. I also maintain my central point about this evidence: our task here is to weigh up the quality of doubt that the documentary inconsistencies raise.
That said, let us consider the subject of memory and psychology. Here I can start by applying general life experience: I know that:
- people do forget obvious and glaring things, including things that have happened in the previous few minutes;
- most people are highly-socialised and have a tendency towards group think and peer pressure, and most people allow these dynamics to greatly influence memory;
- Bonnett was a night worker. I have worked nights: it detrimentally affects memory.
Then we can look at academic knowledge of the subject of memory and psychology. It's been established in controlled studies by academic and professional psychologists that people will swear blind that X is Y if everybody else in their peer group says so, even though their own immediate recent experience doesn't support this. Almost-all of us are susceptible to this flaw: regardless of our IQ level or general intelligence, we will - at times - go along with the group consensus in defiance of our own experiences. It's the way we're wired.
Note: I am NOT suggesting that Bonnett is lying. I don't need to. Anybody reading those logs will deduce, prima facie, that there were two callers not one. Again, that does not mean there were two callers. I may even agree with you that there was only one caller, but that is not what the logs say and remember, here we are considering not so much what we as individuals 'think', but the matter of legal doubt.
Bonnett could easily have taken a call from Nevill, recorded this accurately so far as it went, then got swept up in the seriousness and urgency of the incident, and in all the confusion forgotten about the first call and in his mind merged everything into one call from PC West only. He then doesn't come under scrutiny until many weeks later, by which point it is believed that there was no call from Nevill.
-
Actually I do agree with you that, on the face of it, it is doubtful that Bonnett could have forgotten, but I do not accept that it is impossible. I also maintain my central point about this evidence: our task here is to weigh up the quality of doubt that the documentary inconsistencies raise.
That said, let us consider the subject of memory and psychology. Here I can start by applying general life experience: I know that:
- people do forget obvious and glaring things, including things that have happened in the previous few minutes;
- most people are highly-socialised and have a tendency towards group think and peer pressure, and most people allow these dynamics to greatly influence memory;
- Bonnett was a night worker. I have worked nights: it detrimentally affects memory.
Then we can look at academic knowledge of the subject of memory and psychology. It's been established in controlled studies by academic and professional psychologists that people will swear blind that X is Y if everybody else in their peer group says so, even though their own immediate recent experience doesn't support this. Almost-all of us are susceptible to this flaw: regardless of our IQ level or general intelligence, we will - at times - go along with the group consensus in defiance of our own experiences. It's the way we're wired.
Note: I am NOT suggesting that Bonnett is lying. I don't need to. Anybody reading those logs will deduce, prima facie, that there were two callers not one. Again, that does not mean there were two callers. I may even agree with you that there was only one caller, but that is not what the logs say and remember, here we are considering not so much what we as individuals 'think', but the matter of legal doubt.
Bonnett could easily have taken a call from Nevill, recorded this accurately so far as it went, then got swept up in the seriousness and urgency of the incident, and in all the confusion forgotten about the first call and in his mind merged everything into one call from PC West only. He then doesn't come under scrutiny until many weeks later, by which point it is believed that there was no call from Nevill.
How do you know the academic knowledge/studies to which you refer are factually accurate? And what studies do you refer?
I have no idea how you are wired. And how can you possibly suggest you know how we are wired? And who is this we to which you refer?
"The way we are wired" is a figure of speech
-
Actually I do agree with you that, on the face of it, it is doubtful that Bonnett could have forgotten, but I do not accept that it is impossible. I also maintain my central point about this evidence: our task here is to weigh up the quality of doubt that the documentary inconsistencies raise.
That said, let us consider the subject of memory and psychology. Here I can start by applying general life experience: I know that:
- people do forget obvious and glaring things, including things that have happened in the previous few minutes;
- most people are highly-socialised and have a tendency towards group think and peer pressure, and most people allow these dynamics to greatly influence memory;
- Bonnett was a night worker. I have worked nights: it detrimentally affects memory.
Then we can look at academic knowledge of the subject of memory and psychology. It's been established in controlled studies by academic and professional psychologists that people will swear blind that X is Y if everybody else in their peer group says so, even though their own immediate recent experience doesn't support this. Almost-all of us are susceptible to this flaw: regardless of our IQ level or general intelligence, we will - at times - go along with the group consensus in defiance of our own experiences. It's the way we're wired.
Note: I am NOT suggesting that Bonnett is lying. I don't need to. Anybody reading those logs will deduce, prima facie, that there were two callers not one. Again, that does not mean there were two callers. I may even agree with you that there was only one caller, but that is not what the logs say and remember, here we are considering not so much what we as individuals 'think', but the matter of legal doubt.
Bonnett could easily have taken a call from Nevill, recorded this accurately so far as it went, then got swept up in the seriousness and urgency of the incident, and in all the confusion forgotten about the first call and in his mind merged everything into one call from PC West only. He then doesn't come under scrutiny until many weeks later, by which point it is believed that there was no call from Nevill.
Well now, I guess you can take just about every point connected to this -or ANY case- and apply the "What if............" and "Supposing..............." scenarios. In fact, you appear to have done exactly that. Of course Bonnett didn't lie! Why on earth would he? He had absolutely NO idea -at the time- that he was dealing with the biggest murder case Essex had ever known. As you point out, we all have memory lapses, but it appears, that in this case, you're looking for them -ANYTHING- in order to put meat on the bones of whatever it is you say you're doing.
I wouldn't put too much stress on studies. There are always counter arguments.
-
Well now, I guess you can take just about every point connected to this -or ANY case- and apply the "What if............" and "Supposing..............." scenarios. In fact, you appear to have done exactly that. Of course Bonnett didn't lie! Why on earth would he? He had absolutely NO idea -at the time- that he was dealing with the biggest murder case Essex had ever known. As you point out, we all have memory lapses, but it appears, that in this case, you're looking for them -ANYTHING- in order to put meat on the bones of whatever it is you say you're doing.
I wouldn't put too much stress on studies. There are always counter arguments.
Except that the telephone logs do indicate two callers, so my speculation does not come out of thin air, it arises because of the need to explain the telephone logs. The alternative explanation would be that there was simply one caller and it was all a mix-up, but why accept that and not the other?
Anyway, as I've explained, the question is what quality of legal doubt should be applied to the documentary inconsistencies?
A classification of residual doubt would say that the inconsistencies are irrelevant or nugatory - i.e., in plain speak, it was a cock-up. Does that fit with what we know about the facts? Maybe, maybe not. I don't have time now to consider that question further.
-
How do you know the academic knowledge/studies to which you refer are factually accurate? And what studies do you refer?
I have no idea how you are wired. And how can you possibly suggest you know how we are wired? And who is this we to which you refer?
"The way we are wired" is a figure of speech
I haven't stated it as fact. I don't need to. As is characteristic of you, you act like a bull in a china shop. When studies are presented in court to support a case theory, lawyers don't say: 'This is fact', rather they say: 'This expert, who is eminently-qualified in this field and has X, Y and Z experience, tells us A, B and C, and our argument is that that pattern of behaviour fits within these facts', or the evidence might be presented some other way.
-
I haven't stated it as fact. I don't need to. As is characteristic of you, you act like a bull in a china shop. When studies are presented in court to support a case theory, lawyers don't say: 'This is fact', rather they say: 'This expert, who is eminently-qualified in this field and has X, Y and Z experience, tells us A, B and C, and our argument is that that pattern of behaviour fits within these facts', or the evidence might be presented some other way.
That said, let us consider the subject of memory and psychology. Here I can start by applying general life experience: I know that:
- people do forget obvious and glaring things, including things that have happened in the previous few minutes;
- most people are highly-socialised and have a tendency towards group think and peer pressure, and most people allow these dynamics to greatly influence memory;
- Bonnett was a night worker. I have worked nights: it detrimentally affects memory.
Then we can look at academic knowledge of the subject of memory and psychology. It's been established in controlled studies by academic and professional psychologists that people will swear blind that X is Y if everybody else in their peer group says so, even though their own immediate recent experience doesn't support this. Almost-all of us are susceptible to this flaw: regardless of our IQ level or general intelligence, we will - at times - go along with the group consensus in defiance of our own experiences. It's the way we're wired.
Note: I am NOT suggesting that Bonnett is lying. I don't need to. Anybody reading those logs will deduce, prima facie, that there were two callers not one. Again, that does not mean there were two callers. I may even agree with you that there was only one caller, but that is not what the logs say and remember, here we are considering not so much what we as individuals 'think', but the matter of legal doubt.
Bonnett could easily have taken a call from Nevill, recorded this accurately so far as it went, then got swept up in the seriousness and urgency of the incident, and in all the confusion forgotten about the first call and in his mind merged everything into one call from PC West only. He then doesn't come under scrutiny until many weeks later, by which point it is believed that there was no call from Nevill.
Can you point me to the previous grounds of appeal or CCRC statement of reasons where this is stated?
Is this what has been submitted on Bambers behalf by any chance? @)(++(*
-
Except that the telephone logs do indicate two callers, so my speculation does not come out of thin air, it arises because of the need to explain the telephone logs. The alternative explanation would be that there was simply one caller and it was all a mix-up, but why accept that and not the other?
Anyway, as I've explained, the question is what quality of legal doubt should be applied to the documentary inconsistencies?
A classification of residual doubt would say that the inconsistencies are irrelevant or nugatory - i.e., in plain speak, it was a cock-up. Does that fit with what we know about the facts? Maybe, maybe not. I don't have time now to consider that question further.
When considering the call logs it's worthwhile taking into consideration Bambers evidence deduced at trial - if as you say you are looking at the "safety of the conviction."
In isolation the call logs may appear confusing (or as you refer to it - "all a mix up") but in reality they aren't.
"The final point concerned the phone call Bamber said his father made to him before being murdered. Bamber said his father had not rung off and he could hear background noises. Checks revealed the farmhouse phone remained off the hook, which would have made it technically impossible for Bamber to call the police from his own phone. If that was untrue, Mr Arlidge summed up, Bamber was lying and trying to cover up his own involvement.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html
-
Again, let me repeat the question that remains about this evidence:
Did Bonnett take calls from the public? Has that point been established?
I would kindly and respectfully ask that there are no further posts to this thread that are off-topic. Please just answer the question.
Thank you very much.
He was the 999 controller who intercepted all incoming emergency calls and put them through to whoever he seemed appropriate. If Neville Bamber made that call Bonnet would have known about it.
Thank you for pointing out that some comments are off topic, you would make an awesome moderator.
-
Except that the telephone logs do indicate two callers, so my speculation does not come out of thin air, it arises because of the need to explain the telephone logs. The alternative explanation would be that there was simply one caller and it was all a mix-up, but why accept that and not the other?
[/b]
Anyway, as I've explained, the question is what quality of legal doubt should be applied to the documentary inconsistencies?
A classification of residual doubt would say that the inconsistencies are irrelevant or nugatory - i.e., in plain speak, it was a cock-up. Does that fit with what we know about the facts? Maybe, maybe not. I don't have time now to consider that question further.
Two things;
who are you suggesting was responsible for the "mix up?"
are you referring to yourself when you ask "why?" "why accept that and not the other" and who or what are you referring to when you ask "why accept that and not the other?"
It would be helpful if you could explain in more detail what exactly it is you mean; your below post appears to suggest you have a basic understanding of some things
I haven't stated it as fact. I don't need to. As is characteristic of you, you act like a bull in a china shop. When studies are presented in court to support a case theory, lawyers don't say: 'This is fact', rather they say: 'This expert, who is eminently-qualified in this field and has X, Y and Z experience, tells us A, B and C, and our argument is that that pattern of behaviour fits within these facts', or the evidence might be presented some other way.
But many of the points you raise suggests you hold conflicting beliefs. How would a lawyer ask what you've asked in your first post (highlighted) , for example?
Further; "what quality of legal doubt should be applied to the documentary inconsistencies?" What is your answer to this; if you have one? I'm not sure what you are asking?
However it's more a case of chinese whispers if anything and the fact Jeremy Bamber managed to con and manipulate a handful of people in the early days to his way of thinking and of course the way in which he presented them with the evidence.
The handful of people could have, for an example, spoken to Bamber and thought to themselves well he doesn't sound like a murderer I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. It's unlikely they would have read much on the case back then because it simply didn't exist. Though the red tops (newspapers) may have been influential back then; which could have helped him in relation to his plausible deniability?
-
He was the 999 controller who intercepted all incoming emergency calls and put them through to whoever he seemed appropriate. If Neville Bamber made that call Bonnet would have known about it.
Thank you for pointing out that some comments are off topic, you would make an awesome moderator.
That's correct in that civilian operator Bonnett took 999 calls from the public. However, Jeremy Bamber did not phone 999 but choose to telephone Chelmsford Police Station and spoke to PC West. West contacted Bonnett in order to establish which area car should respond. At no time was any call received directly from Nevill Bamber.
The call is referenced below. CD 1990 refers to PC West while MB refers to civilian operator Malcolm Bonnett.
The upper image is a copy of the call received by CD 1990 (PC West) while the lower image is a copy of the report passed by PC West to Malcolm Bonnett. No mystery IMO.
Click on images to enlarge.
-
But...
(i). I'm not taking sides.
(ii). My point about you not understanding the way the legal system works relates to a different discussion and stands. You don't. You're an idiot.
-
That's correct in that civilian operator Bonnett took 999 calls from the public.
I asked about that repeatedly before on here, but it was never answered. Thank you for confirming that he was taking calls from the public. I will trust your information on this point.
I still hold to my previous position, which is that I draw no conclusions as to what the telephone log actually is a record of. I merely point out the patently obvious, that it does read like a record of two callers. I accept that it may well in fact have been a mistake and it was really a record of one caller and Bonnett got mixed up. From one point-of-view, that does make sense. However, there's another point-of-view that says Bonnett could have failed to record a short, perhaps abortive, call from Nevill in the few moments before he took the call from West, and given that the whole incident was fast-moving, the particularity of the earlier call could have been overlooked and only recorded vestigially as the log was written-up, which meant that it was later either interpreted as one caller or ignored.
You will ask: Why didn't Bonnett mention this earlier call to PC West? A very fair question, but thinking about it, why would he need to? The role of PC West was merely to relay essential information to Bonnett to ensure a prompt police response, and in turn also to liaise with Jeremy Bamber. Bonnett of course would not have realised the significance of what he was recording at the time, only that the first call from Nevill Bamber related to the second call from PC West, and given it was the same incident, he might not have bothered to follow-up the first call or mention it in that instant when the immediate operational priority was to dispatch a response car. The same observation can apply to Bonnett's communications with the police responders en route and at the scene. Bonnett also would not have been asked about his recollection of the incident for some time afterwards, perhaps months, and his contemporaneous record of the incident would not have been reviewed until at least some weeks later - if at all.
Some people on here aren't taking seriously the idea of memory loss, but we must remember the environment in which Bonnett was working at that time was not digital, which meant no independent permanent record of calls and no means for simultaneous note-taking other than by paper and pen while holding a phone. If I understand correctly, they were not even using desktop computers. This meant a complete reliance on memory. It was the old-fashioned phones and everything on paper - we know that because we have the log - and it was in the pre-PACE days when internal police procedures were not rigorous.
You will contend that, no matter what the circumstances, it would have been completely unprofessional, even a dereliction of duty, for poor old Malcolm Bonnett not to have recorded a call from Nevill. I'm not sure I agree. Bonnett was a civilian police operator, not a sworn constable. Bonnett's job was to deal exigently with calls from the public and the police. It seems to me that's exactly what he did. He did his job. He would not have had court cases and complex criminal conspiracies in mind while he doing so. But if his written record of the incident is incomplete, that's unfortunate for Jeremy Bamber.
Whatever, the question for me is the degree of doubt that this piece of evidence introduces into the equation. Jeremy asserts that he received a call from his father, tried to call back, and his father's line was engaged. We have no evidence for Nevill's call to Jeremy beyond Jeremy's own statements. That is a serious weakness in Jeremy's position. This has to be balanced with the ambiguity of what the police actually recorded that night. I think for Bonnett's telephone log to assist, we would have to be clear on the balance of probabilities that Nevill had indeed rung the police, and - while I would not go as far as other posters here who dismiss the significance of the document out-of-hand - I have to say that since it doesn't make the position clear, it can only introduce residual doubt. As such, it advances Jeremy's position not one iota.
-
On a separate note, one or two posts on this thread are completely unacceptable. That's manifest. It's not just somebody losing their temper for a day or so, it's repeat behaviour over months, even years - the evidence is on two forums.
In my opinion, a strong message does need to be sent that personal attacks on Forum users will not be tolerated, that posters must be civil, that posters should endeavour to keep their comments relevant, and repeat offenders will receive a temporary ban. In that regard, I don't mind if I am liable for the same sanctions as everybody else, but it must be equal treatment. No favouritism.
Liberties are being taken and the message is not getting through. Just deal with the individual who is causing the problem. This individual, I believe, is out-of-control and needs a month or two away from here to reflect on her behaviour. But if you think I'm causing the problem, then ban me instead: make it a permanent ban, please.
Please don't reply to this by complaining that I should report matters to the moderator. The problem is glaring and for all to see. Don't tell me I'm being 'emotional' or 'taking things too personally'. This isn't primary school, don't condescend to me. I'm here to discuss the case, that's it. I have the same rights as every other poster and will not tolerate personal attacks.
Thank you.
-
On a separate note, one or two posts on this thread are completely unacceptable. That's manifest. It's not just somebody losing their temper for a day or so, it's repeat behaviour over months, even years - the evidence is on two forums.
In my opinion, a strong message does need to be sent that personal attacks on Forum users will not be tolerated, that posters must be civil, that posters should endeavour to keep their comments relevant, and repeat offenders will receive a temporary ban. In that regard, I don't mind if I am liable for the same sanctions as everybody else, but it must be equal treatment. No favouritism.
Liberties are being taken and the message is not getting through. Just deal with the individual who is causing the problem. This individual, I believe, is out-of-control and needs a month or two away from here to reflect on her behaviour. But if you think I'm causing the problem, then ban me instead: make it a permanent ban, please.
Please don't reply to this by complaining that I should report matters to the moderator. The problem is glaring and for all to see. Don't tell me I'm being 'emotional' or 'taking things too personally'. This isn't primary school, don't condescend to me. I'm here to discuss the case, that's it. I have the same rights as every other poster and will not tolerate personal attacks.
Thank you.
I have read all posts and I apologise in that I found two comments in one post which I overlooked. These comments have now been edited from the post. However the post was made towards the end of last month and before we all agreed to draw a line under past conflicts. Although I am disappointed it was necessary to edit a post yesterday.
As I've said previously internet forums are in many ways a microcosm of the real world and the various environments we interact with others some of whom we find agreeable and some not. I find it usually helps to either find a way of getting on with others or simply give them a wide berth if possible. We don't just sack people or ban people from pubs and clubs etc unless they are breaking the law and/or extremely offensive etc. The same applies here ie we don't ban someone just because a.n other finds his/her style disagreeable. It's all subjective ie what one finds disagreeable isn't necessarily so for another.
Posts containing comments of a personal nature and/or designed to goad etc will not be tolerated. Offending posts will be edited or removed on sight. If I find I am having to constantly take action from the same individual(s) he/she will receive a written warning. If the offending behaviour isn't curtailed the member will face a ban.
-
On a separate note, one or two posts on this thread are completely unacceptable. That's manifest. It's not just somebody losing their temper for a day or so, it's repeat behaviour over months, even years - the evidence is on two forums.
In my opinion, a strong message does need to be sent that personal attacks on Forum users will not be tolerated, that posters must be civil, that posters should endeavour to keep their comments relevant, and repeat offenders will receive a temporary ban. In that regard, I don't mind if I am liable for the same sanctions as everybody else, but it must be equal treatment. No favouritism.
Liberties are being taken and the message is not getting through. Just deal with the individual who is causing the problem. This individual, I believe, is out-of-control and needs a month or two away from here to reflect on her behaviour. But if you think I'm causing the problem, then ban me instead: make it a permanent ban, please.
Please don't reply to this by complaining that I should report matters to the moderator. The problem is glaring and for all to see. Don't tell me I'm being 'emotional' or 'taking things too personally'. This isn't primary school, don't condescend to me. I'm here to discuss the case, that's it. I have the same rights as every other poster and will not tolerate personal attacks.
Thank you.
Your post raises several questions
(1) are you suggesting you have been reading my posts for months; years even?
(2) are you aware that Simon Hall's brother, and others, helped uncover the lies of Simon Hall on these very forums?
You claim "I'm out of control"
I was a very different person during the time I spent with Hall and my posts across the two forums are evident of that. My brain had been scrambled and I was under the influence of a very dangerous, controlling and manipulative individual.
Your numerous projections are very interesting
You state: "I have the same rights as every other poster and will not tolerate personal attacks."
Define personal attacks? Are you referring to the numerous covert attacks you've aimed at me or are you attempting to carry on where the Hall family, and others, left off?
I really think you should draw a line under what has gone on before.
I'm not interested in you per se, just the content of your posts. You on the other hand appear to have targeted me in particular and appear to want to deflect debate and take threads off of topic at half 3 in the morning to raise an issue that you could have dealt with privately via the private messaging system.
I think it is you who is attempting to take liberties by attempting to manipulate and control those who run or moderate the two forums. You've got that message across loud and clear.
You state: "Just deal with the individual who is causing the problem."
Then you state: "This individual, I believe, is out-of-control and needs a month or two away from here to reflect on her behaviour. But if you think I'm causing the problem, then ban me instead: make it a permanent ban, please"
What's with the ultimatums?
Can we PLEASE get back on topic 8((()*/ and may I suggest you ignore my posts if you are having difficulty tolerating them. You've banged on enough to others on both boards to ignore you or not reply. At least have the common decency to practice what you preach and stop exhibiting quite apparent hypocrisy and double standards!
* Just so you know: I think you are attempting to play some kind of tactical game across the two boards in order for your arguments to stand out and be taken seriously. I've though this for some time. Just sayin...
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Abe Lincoln
-
I asked about that repeatedly before on here, but it was never answered. Thank you for confirming that he was taking calls from the public. I will trust your information on this point.
I answered you several times!
Here - http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9279.msg453318#msg453318
Here - http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9279.msg453500#msg453500
AND
Here! http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9279.msg454262#msg454262
-
Posters are reminded to comment strictly according to the thread topic otherwise posts run the risk of being expunged.
-
Following on from John's post #90 and my previous requests about staying on-topic it is disappointing to see posters ignoring our requests. The above post is completely unrelated to the topic and will be deleted shortly.
I'm all for encouraging debate and different points of view but please do so in the appropriate threads or start new ones and take note of the other rules on the home page:
* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
* Libellous or defamatory material will be removed on sight
* Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!
For those who wish to comment on topics underway on Blue please find relevant threads or start new ones either on the main case board ie here or here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=79.0
For those who wish to comment on posters' posts elsewhere please remember if those posters are also members here the posts need to be kept civil.