The Bonnett/West Telephonic Incident Logs

[Nicholas]

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
 

[APRIL]

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.

[LuminousWanderer]

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.

[LuminousWanderer]

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.

[Nicholas]

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?   

[Nicholas]

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

[Angelo222]

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.

[Nicholas]

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?

[John]

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.

[Nicholas]

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.

[LuminousWanderer]

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.

[LuminousWanderer]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

[Nicholas]

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  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

[Caroline]

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