New Call Logs Evidence, Oct 2019
Nevill Bamber's call at 3.26
Jeremy's Call at 3.36
New Evidence : Discovered in the post conviction Dickinson Review which reveals Jeremy Bamber was still on the phone at 3.37. Definitive evidence that he did not call police at 3.26, as the prosecution claim. Jeremy's father made the 3.26 call.
Fresh Evidence Concerning the Call Logs, by Yvonne Hartley
The police maintain that they only received a single telephone call on the morning of 7th August 1985, and that call was from Jeremy Bamber. At trial, documented differences in the time of this ‘single call’ were put down to human error, and the trial judge, Justice Drake, instructed the jury to take the time of the call as being 03:26am.
A comprehensive campaign web page and a video already exist that explain the facts showing that two separate telephone calls were received by the police: the first at 03:26am made by Nevill Bamber from White House Farm, and a second made 10 minutes later by Jeremy Bamber from his home in Goldhanger. New evidence supporting the fact that there were two calls made to the police has been discovered in a statement of interview from a police review of the case. The police officer says Jeremy Bamber was on the telephone at 3.37am which is impossible if Jeremy had made his call at 3.26am. This evidence is discussed in more detail below.
In 2010, following the discovery of the two different telephone call logs that recorded these individual calls, Jeremy made a submission to the CCRC outlining all the differences in the logs that showed, without question, that they related to two unique telephone calls from two different people.
The CCRC responded to this evidence in a cumulative document called the: “Provisional Statement of Reasons” which set out their opinion on a number of defence submissions that had been made to them over an eight-year period.
The Commission stated:
“It appears that human errors in recording of time and perhaps variations in the accuracy of the clocks used for reference have led to some uncertainty over the precise timings, although it is now generally accepted that the 03:36 time was noted in error (see Court of Appeal judgment 2002 paragraph 26). There is no further material to now support a contention that the police received a message direct from Ralph Neville [sic] Bamber and then went to great lengths to conceal the fact.”
The CCRC failed to comment on any of the many other differences on the two logs that had been set out. In 2018, fresh evidence was discovered in the case material that shows unquestionably that Jeremy made his telephone call at 03:36am, and therefore there was no human error on the part of PC West, as was contended at trial to explain the timing discrepancies.
In his trial evidence PC West was questioned at length about the time of Jeremy’s call and his actions. He stated:
“Q. As regards the first conversation that you had with Jeremy Bamber, before you rang the information room that must have itself taken a few minutes.
A. Well, it is difficult to ascribe times but perhaps a minute at the most. It is, a minute is an awfully long time.”
Therefore, PC West states he was talking to Jeremy for approximately ‘a minute’ before contacting anyone else.
The new evidence In 1986, immediately after the trial concluded, DCI Dickinson conducted an enquiry into the police investigation of the case and, in the course of this, interviewed PC Myall who was stationed at Witham Police Station with PS Bews and PC Saxby.
PC Myall told Dickinson:
“We received a telephone call at the P.Stn. [Police Station, Witham]. The officer (PC West) at CD Control [Chelmsford] was on the phone and told us that he was relating information to us and still had the informant (Jeremy Bamber) on the other telephone.”
Crucially, a time is written at the side of this information about the contact made by PC West, and that time clearly states: “03:37am approx”.
This fresh evidence will be presented to the CCRC, as not only does it confirm that Jeremy’s call was at 03:36am, but that the Judge misdirected the jury by instructing them to take the earlier time, 03:26am, as the time Jeremy phoned the police.
Further fresh evidence
In addition, evidence provided in the witness statement of PC Saxby dated 23 September 1985 states:
“About 03:30am on Wednesday the 7th August 1985 I was on duty at Witham Police Station in company Police Sergeant 36 Bews and Police Constable 1509 Myall, [sic] when I received a message over my personal radio, from Chelmsford Police Station”
PC Saxby is clear he received information via his police personal radio at about 03:30am. This can only have related to the telephone call that had been received at 03:26am made by Nevill Bamber. PC Myall gave evidence that PC Saxby spoke to PC West over the internal telephone at 03:37am. This can only have related to the telephone call that had been received at 03:36am made by Jeremy Bamber. This evidence reveals that PC West contacted Witham Police station on two occasions using a different means of doing so each time, because he received two different calls at different times.
The telephone call from Nevill Bamber to Jeremy
Jeremy has always maintained that he received a telephone call from his father at approximately 03:10am-03:15am on the morning of the 7th August 1985, alerting him to the unfolding tragedy at his family home. However, the prosecution said this did not happen, and that Jeremy was lying about receiving such a call.
In 2010 in a report from the CCRC in addressing the call log issue the commission stated::
“Had Ralph Neville [sic] Bamber already called the police he would have been likely to mention this to his son in the course of the call”.
The CCRC had obviously not understood the actual evidence because, if they had, they would have realised that Nevill’s call to the police happened after he spoke to Jeremy. Therefore, how could Nevill have told Jeremy he had contacted the police if he had not done so at that time?
The Commission concluded that there was: “nothing in this issue that would be capable of creating a real possibility of the Court of Appeal finding the conviction to be unsafe”. The new submissions to the CCRC will argue both of these issues, and also contain a new forensic report that concluded that the preferred explanation of the two call logs was that two telephone calls were received by the police, one by Nevill Bamber at 03:26am, and a second by Jeremy at 03:36am.
This fact alone makes it impossible that Jeremy could have murdered his father, and is therefore solid exculpatory evidence that Jeremy is completely innocent of any involvement in the deaths of his family.
 Holmes Box 8-274 - Pc Saxby - (23.09.85) PDF, Pg. 1
PSOR 2011 – PDF Para. 256
 Holmes 33-113) Pc West - (trial transcript), PDF, Page 8 @B
 AI-102-013) Pc Myall (07.11.86) – Dickinson PDF, Pg. 49
 PSOR 2011, PDF Para 257