The phone call

[Caroline]

It doesn't say that CD 1990 had called does it?

That bottom bit could be an addition.

Yes it does, that is the space for CALLER!

[G-Unit]

Yes it does, that is the space for CALLER!

That isn't clear to me. Also Sheila's age is down as 26 but on 1990's log it says 27.

[Holly Goodhead]

That isn't clear to me. Also Sheila's age is down as 26 but on 1990's log it says 27.

When she was in fact 28!

[APRIL]

That isn't clear to me. Also Sheila's age is down as 26 but on 1990's log it says 27.

Message A from Jeremy, who seems not to know Sheila's married name, to West. Message B -Jeremy's message A- relayed from West to Bonnet. The discrepancy regarding her age, which at the most, was 12 months, at the least, 1 day -she had, in fact, had her birthday in July- can hardly be seen as being suspicious.

[G-Unit]

Message A from Jeremy, who seems not to know Sheila's married name, to West. Message B -Jeremy's message A- relayed from West to Bonnet. The discrepancy regarding her age, which at the most, was 12 months, at the least, 1 day -she had, in fact, had her birthday in July- can hardly be seen as being suspicious.

So you're saying that Jeremy told West that Sheila was 27 and West changed it to 26 when he passed the message on?

[APRIL]

So you're saying that Jeremy told West that Sheila was 27 and West changed it to 26 when he passed the message on?

 You sound determined to imply something sinister here.  Even IF such had been the case, what on earth would have been the point of it? How likely is it that Jeremy knew exactly how old Sheila was -given that her married name didn't trip easily off his tongue and she'd recently had her 28th birthday? Might it be that he'd said 26/27?

[Holly Goodhead]

 You sound determined to imply something sinister here.  Even IF such had been the case, what on earth would have been the point of it? How likely is it that Jeremy knew exactly how old Sheila was -given that her married name didn't trip easily off his tongue and she'd recently had her 28th birthday? Might it be that he'd said 26/27?

I don't think G-Unit is determined to imply anything sinister anywhere.  I think it's more a case she's new to the case and wants to be sure in her own mind about the various aspects, and case in general, before making decisions and coming to conclusions.

I was very impressed with G-Unit on the MM board here.  Her case knowledge was excellent and she was always well behaved.  I'm pleased she is joining in here and hope she stays.

[Holly Goodhead]

Re the above I would also add that our conclusions on the MM case are polar opposite and that may turn out to be the case here too but it matters not.

[Caroline]

I don't think G-Unit is determined to imply anything sinister anywhere.  I think it's more a case she's new to the case and wants to be sure in her own mind about the various aspects, and case in general, before making decisions and coming to conclusions.

I was very impressed with G-Unit on the MM board here.  Her case knowledge was excellent and she was always well behaved.  I'm pleased she is joining in here and hope she stays.

Then as you don't believe in the call from Nevill either, why don't you take the time to explain.

[G-Unit]

 You sound determined to imply something sinister here.  Even IF such had been the case, what on earth would have been the point of it? How likely is it that Jeremy knew exactly how old Sheila was -given that her married name didn't trip easily off his tongue and she'd recently had her 28th birthday? Might it be that he'd said 26/27?

I don't know about sinister, but if, as you seem to believe, 1990 gave the wrong information to MW then incompetence comes to mind. Writing one thing and saying another is incompetent.

[G-Unit]

I don't think G-Unit is determined to imply anything sinister anywhere.  I think it's more a case she's new to the case and wants to be sure in her own mind about the various aspects, and case in general, before making decisions and coming to conclusions.

I was very impressed with G-Unit on the MM board here.  Her case knowledge was excellent and she was always well behaved.  I'm pleased she is joining in here and hope she stays.

Thank you Holly. As yet I'm not convinced that there was just one phone call to the police because the two records don't match.

[Caroline]

Thank you Holly. As yet I'm not convinced that there was just one phone call to the police because the two records don't match.

Because they were written by two different people but ask yourself why in the very beginning off this case, both West and Bonnett would lie about the phone call because they would BOTH have to be complicit in this lie?

[Holly Goodhead]

Then as you don't believe in the call from Nevill either, why don't you take the time to explain.

I've already endorsed your post.

[Holly Goodhead]

Thank you Holly. As yet I'm not convinced that there was just one phone call to the police because the two records don't match.

Have you read the supporting docs eg trial testimony from West?  If not I'll upload as this might assist your understanding.

[Holly Goodhead]

Here's the article by Bob Woffinden re the phones.  By his own admission the farm only had one line.  So if someone wanted to prevent occupants using upstairs phones all someone needed to do was take a downstairs phone off the hook thus disabling all other phones from dialling out. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html