The Bonnett/West Telephonic Incident Logs

[APRIL]

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.

[APRIL]

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.

[david1819]

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

[APRIL]

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.

[Nicholas]

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.

[Nicholas]

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."

[LuminousWanderer]

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!).

[LuminousWanderer]

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). 

[LuminousWanderer]

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.

[LuminousWanderer]

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.

[LuminousWanderer]

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.

[Caroline]

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.

[LuminousWanderer]

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.

[Caroline]

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.

[LuminousWanderer]

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.