Author Topic: More dirty tricks by AE?  (Read 440 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27989
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2019, 08:27:PM »



Yes, to have suited those who didn't and don't believe him. None too sharp are you ?


OH, NOW I see. He deliberately waited before alerting the police in case he was suspected he was calling them for effect. It didn't matter about them all getting shot just as long as no one thought he called the police for "effect" ::) ::) ::)

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2019, 09:12:PM »



Yes, to have suited those who didn't and don't believe him. None too sharp are you ?

He'd have only thought like that if he was planning a murder  ;D ;D ;D. No Lookout, not as 'sharp' as you - no one is  ::)

Offline Reader

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2361
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2019, 02:30:AM »
AE stated that Jeremy claimed he was on the phone for 11 minutes.
What exactly did AE claim? What was shown previously didn't include this claim.

Which log has West written 03:42?
Pc West wrote (see his log on this forum)  "Fathers phone Mal. 860209 checked by GPO @ 0342 & left off hook" and his statement of 13 September 1985 clarifies that after Jeremy's call ended, Pc West informed Acting Inspector Targrass of the situation (but doesn't say how he did that) and immediately afterwards dialled Maldon 860209 [the WHF number at the time]. The line was engaged, so he asked the GPO operator to check the line. He timed her reply at 3:42, and she said the telephone had been left off the hook. Thus 03:42 should have been shortly after Jeremy's call ended, not 6 minutes after it ended.

As the time on Pc West's log came to be disputed, the police could have asked Targrass when Pc West spoke to him, but it seems they didn't do that.

. . . calling Julie prior to the police - something he denies . . .
Presumably, he doesn't now deny calling Julie prior to calling the police.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2019, 01:15:PM »
What exactly did AE claim? What was shown previously didn't include this claim.
Pc West wrote (see his log on this forum)  "Fathers phone Mal. 860209 checked by GPO @ 0342 & left off hook" and his statement of 13 September 1985 clarifies that after Jeremy's call ended, Pc West informed Acting Inspector Targrass of the situation (but doesn't say how he did that) and immediately afterwards dialled Maldon 860209 [the WHF number at the time]. The line was engaged, so he asked the GPO operator to check the line. He timed her reply at 3:42, and she said the telephone had been left off the hook. Thus 03:42 should have been shortly after Jeremy's call ended, not 6 minutes after it ended.

As the time on Pc West's log came to be disputed, the police could have asked Targrass when Pc West spoke to him, but it seems they didn't do that.
Presumably, he doesn't now deny calling Julie prior to calling the police.

He does still state that he called the police first - I asked him.

From West's first statement (9th August), it is now clear that he completed the C1 form AFTER talking to Jeremy. This is why the timing is off.


Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2019, 01:27:PM »
What exactly did AE claim? What was shown previously didn't include this claim.

"he had timed police action to his call as 11 minutes'

What do you imagine that means Reader? Because if you're trying to insinuate that it means the time West left Jeremy on hold, it would mean he was on the phone even longer! It obviously just means he times the call at 11 minutes.

Offline Reader

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2361
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2019, 04:48:PM »
"he had timed police action to his call as 11 minutes'

What do you imagine that means Reader?
I'm unsure what it would mean, but it certainly isn't making a clear statement of his call's duration.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40856
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2019, 05:19:PM »
It probably felt that long. Even 5 minutes seems an age when you're waiting. Time is only ever approximate if you don't have a watch or a clock nearby or one that doesn't tell the correct time.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2019, 05:20:PM »
I'm unsure what it would mean, but it certainly isn't making a clear statement of his call's duration.

Perhaps not to you but you can think of what else it would mean, To me it's obvious.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2019, 05:21:PM »
It probably felt that long. Even 5 minutes seems an age when you're waiting. Time is only ever approximate if you don't have a watch or a clock nearby or one that doesn't tell the correct time.

Well, clearly he MUST have had a watch on - you don't frag a figure like 11 minutes out of the ether.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40856
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2019, 05:31:PM »
Well, clearly he MUST have had a watch on - you don't frag a figure like 11 minutes out of the ether.




Must ? Not definitely,then ?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #40 on: November 06, 2019, 05:36:PM »



Must ? Not definitely,then ?

Unlike your out of the air notion that the canvas shoes were A. blood covered and B. Not on the list of exhibits. I'd say he wearing a watch was pretty definite!

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27989
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #41 on: November 06, 2019, 05:43:PM »



Must ? Not definitely,then ?


Without one, how would he have known how long he'd been on the phone................unless he was psychic, too?

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40856
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #42 on: November 06, 2019, 06:04:PM »

Without one, how would he have known how long he'd been on the phone................unless he was psychic, too?




It's not him, it's you expecting everyone to know how long he was on the phone. Even gauging the time/distance from Goldhanger to WHF while travelling at X amount of MPH. The answer's a lemon !
How long is a piece of string ?

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27989
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #43 on: November 06, 2019, 06:11:PM »



It's not him, it's you expecting everyone to know how long he was on the phone. Even gauging the time/distance from Goldhanger to WHF while travelling at X amount of MPH. The answer's a lemon !
How long is a piece of string ?

Lookout, even with discalculia, I KNOW that the answer can't be "lemons" coz they don't come into the equation. I believe it goes something like MPH+D over T. Given my difficulty, I doubt it was I who started the conversation.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7391
Re: More dirty tricks by AE?
« Reply #44 on: November 06, 2019, 06:15:PM »
Must ? Not definitely,then ?

Its important to note that Jeremy was only timing this call according to Ann Eaton. 

This thread here is an interesting read.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842

She managed to hear Jeremy say all kinds of things nobody else did. Even things the police officers never heard him say when taking his statements.