Why Nevill Could Not Have Made A 999 Call: A Logical Case

[guest29835]

The gun cupboard was in Nevill's office den at the back of the kitchen.

Or he may have wanted to get outside to contact someone like Len Foakes.

Yes, either is of course possible.

[Robittybob1]

Before 3.26 a.m., presumably.  And that may be why Jeremy rang them at 3.26 a.m., or at all. 

But I haven't said Nevill did.  Please read my last two posts and again, think about them, and try and understand.  If you still don't understand, possibly we're wasting our time.

You state that it is a fact that Jeremy called the police at 3.26 a.m.  Forgive me, but I'm not sure that is accepted as fact by all reasonable people who have looked at this. 

Let's say Jeremy is the killer, I haven't said that this means Nevill had to ring 999.  Nor have I said he didn't.  Nor have I said that Nevill would ring 999 in any event.  But let's say Jeremy caught him at the phone or in the middle of a call that was never completed, maybe because he couldn't speak into the phone due to his injuries.  This may then be what prompted Jeremy to call the police - it may be what gave him the impetus for the alibi. that in addition to the awkward fact of Nevill being found in the kitchen at all.

But I only speculate.  I'm only exploring and asking questions.

Well you decide on a time that Jeremy rang the police, I had to think about it for a moment and some reason 3:26 AM popped into my head.     I think that was the time recorded on the police log.    Right I might be slowly getting your drift.  You might be trying to prove it was at all times impossible for Nevill to have time or the ability to dial 999 before, during or after the shooting. ( I think after the shooting is fairly certain IMO.)

[Robittybob1]

I see on another thread you answer your own question
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10302.msg480503.html#msg480503
"The reason I think Nevill didn't dial 999 is because there is no blood on the kitchen phone.  The issue isn't really whether he dialled 999 but whether he made it to the phone.  It seems to me it would be instinctive for him to do this under attack from Jeremy, regardless of injuries; either that, or flee the house.  But he would be fleeing the house bare-foot in his pyjamas. "

But from the statement by Jeremy the phone call from Neville sounded more like that Nevill was not injured at the time.  No blood on the phone for when he made the call to Jeremy he wasn't injured yet.  Your argument fails then doesn't it.

Once again without evidence you put the blame on Jeremy when you write: "It seems to me it would be instinctive for him to do this under attack from Jeremy, ..."

Your observation "But he would be fleeing the house bare-foot in his pyjamas" is a possibility, so I suggest he was heading toward a pair of gumboots firstly.  Where were the farm boots kept?

[guest29835]

I see on another thread you answer your own question
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10302.msg480503.html#msg480503
"The reason I think Nevill didn't dial 999 is because there is no blood on the kitchen phone.  The issue isn't really whether he dialled 999 but whether he made it to the phone.  It seems to me it would be instinctive for him to do this under attack from Jeremy, regardless of injuries; either that, or flee the house.  But he would be fleeing the house bare-foot in his pyjamas. "

But from the statement by Jeremy the phone call from Neville sounded more like that Nevill was not injured at the time.  No blood on the phone for when he made the call to Jeremy he wasn't injured yet.  Your argument fails then doesn't it.

Once again without evidence you put the blame on Jeremy when you write: "It seems to me it would be instinctive for him to do this under attack from Jeremy, ..."

Your observation "But he would be fleeing the house bare-foot in his pyjamas" is a possibility, so I suggest he was heading toward a pair of gumboots firstly.  Where were the farm boots kept?

What argument?  What blame?  I'm not putting the blame on anybody.  You're just not understanding the context of the comment.  It's a hypothetical.  You're just not understanding where I'm coming from.  You've grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick. 

Hypothetically, again, why couldn't Jeremy have wiped the phone clean?  I suggest that above, actually.  But I'm not suggesting that happened, I'm just exploring possibilities.

I'm not making allegations or arguments or definitive factual statements or conclusions.  I'm just hypothesising.

Get it?

No offence, but this is getting like Monty Python.

Any chance you could refrain from commenting on my posts?  Just for the sake of my own f-ing sanity..??

Before Steve jumps in and says I'm being defensive or hyper-sensitive, I'm not.  I don't have the time to explain the explanation of the explanation of what I've already explained.  This is turning into comedy.

[Robittybob1]

I use the definition of argument as "a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal".

it is not an argument, like angry etc.  but your reasons supporting an idea.

As soon as you say Jeremy was there you are in fact blaming him, yet I've still seen no evidence he was there.  For example "It seems to me it would be instinctive for him to do this under attack from Jeremy."  Was that hypothetically speaking?

"hypothesizing" maybe but it doesn't seem like that to me.

[Steve_uk]

What argument?  What blame?  I'm not putting the blame on anybody.  You're just not understanding the context of the comment.  It's a hypothetical.  You're just not understanding where I'm coming from.  You've grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick. 

Hypothetically, again, why couldn't Jeremy have wiped the phone clean?  I suggest that above, actually.  But I'm not suggesting that happened, I'm just exploring possibilities.

I'm not making allegations or arguments or definitive factual statements or conclusions.  I'm just hypothesising.

Get it?

No offence, but this is getting like Monty Python.

Any chance you could refrain from commenting on my posts?  Just for the sake of my own f-ing sanity..??

Before Steve jumps in and says I'm being defensive or hyper-sensitive, I'm not.  I don't have the time to explain the explanation of the explanation of what I've already explained.  This is turning into comedy.

This site is named the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion, not the Jeremy Bamber monologue with a few misspelt Latin terms thrown in for good measure. I have lost count now of the number of members you have insulted or offended in some way.

[JackieD]

Definitely not me.  QC seems to be the only member leaning towards Jeremy being guilty that is not obsessed, obnoxious and rude.

He keeps posting scenarios for guilt and innocence and also makes it quite clear there was never enough evidence available to convict Jeremy anyway.

We don’t agree about the police not going out of there way to convict a person knowing they are innocent but the forum is for debate and it’s not here for Steve or Mary Mugford to promote the low life that we get fed up of hearing about Julie Mugford

[guest29835]

I use the definition of argument as "a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal".

it is not an argument, like angry etc.  but your reasons supporting an idea.

As soon as you say Jeremy was there you are in fact blaming him, yet I've still seen no evidence he was there.  For example "It seems to me it would be instinctive for him to do this under attack from Jeremy."  Was that hypothetically speaking?

"hypothesizing" maybe but it doesn't seem like that to me.

I can't really waste any more of my time on this, sorry.  I've explained that I'm not blaming anybody.  I can't help how you misinterpret my posts, motives and intentions.

[guest29835]

This site is named the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion, not the Jeremy Bamber monologue with a few misspelt Latin terms thrown in for good measure. I have lost count now of the number of members you have insulted or offended in some way.

I'm new to all this, but somebody has this morning sent me by PM a link to the activities of "Rob" on a different forum and they think he's pulling my plonker.  I'm not sure, but he's definitely got the wrong end of the stick and he started by being insolent towards me.  I've replied in kind.

Now, could you name these people I have offended, please?  And quote the offensive posts, with links to the threads for context?  Then we can see your evidence for ourselves.  I've certainly insulted you, because you insulted me, but I doubt that your accusation that I have insulted others will stand up to much.  For instance, you previously alleged that I have insulted Lookout, but I had done no such thing. That was just you trying to stir up trouble.

You are a stone cold liar, Steve.

I rely on evidence when I make accusations.  When I say you're a liar, I quote your lies.  When I say you're a hypocrite, I quote your special comedy posts and refer members of the Forum to your tendency towards haughtily critiquing the same behaviour in others. 

In short, I've nailed you, Steve.

You know, I ought to start two new threads:

One will be called Comedian Steve's "Droll" Sense of Humour.  We can all then look at how over the years you have made jokes about the case while tastelessly posting under that avatar, showing two murder victims and their father.

I must confess, however, that this will only be a small selection of Comedian Steve's droll contributions to the comedy field because, to be honest, I skip or ignore the vast majority of his posts in the archives.  Sorry, but I can only read so much Sons and Lovers.

I then should start a thread called Views On Disingenuous Steve, containing posts from numerous contributors who have grown sick of you - most of them have thrown in the towel and left.

[Steve_uk]

You can start as many threads as you like. Despite your persecution complex nobody is stopping you. Once you stick your head above the parapet prepare to be challenged. If you can't see the personal remarks that you have made not just about me but other members (and I have personal messages on the subject in my Inbox which I am not going to divulge or they wouldn't remain personal) then you are the one who is touched.

[Robittybob1]

I can't really waste any more of my time on this, sorry.  I've explained that I'm not blaming anybody.  I can't help how you misinterpret my posts, motives and intentions.

That is a shame for I'm also neutral in my view on the case.   

[guest29835]

You can start as many threads as you like. Despite your persecution complex nobody is stopping you. Once you stick your head above the parapet prepare to be challenged. If you can't see the personal remarks that you have made not just about me but other members (and I have personal messages on the subject in my Inbox which I am not going to divulge or they wouldn't remain personal) then you are the one who is touched.

Thanks Susan, sorry, Helen, sorry I mean Julie.  Oh wait, no, Douglas.  No, sorry, I mean Steve.  I do get you cosy housemates mixed up!  Easily done.

Anyway, again, here we see from.....Steve??....the classic behaviour of the abuser.  Gas lighting. 

It's me with that persecution complex again!  It's nothing to do with anything that Helen, sorry Julie, sorry Steve has actually said.  I'm imagining it all.

What personal comments have I made about other members, then?  Give us some links or quotes.  It must be damning stuff.  Be sure to link to the relevant threads, so that we can see the context.

[guest29835]

That is a shame for I'm also neutral in my view on the case.   

You may be genuine, but the problem is that Steve has poisoned the Forum and that explains my knee-jerk reaction.  I'm just here to discuss the case.  Steve has an agenda, and he abuses people.  It's his long-term project.  He is now roping people in as a gang to get me banned from the Forum, using the PM system for this purpose.

[Steve_uk]

You may be genuine, but the problem is that Steve has poisoned the Forum and that explains my knee-jerk reaction.  I'm just here to discuss the case.  Steve has an agenda, and he abuses people.  It's his long-term project.  He is now roping people in as a gang to get me banned from the Forum, using the PM system for this purpose.

We'll let the wider membership decide.

[guest29835]

We'll let the wider membership decide.

I'm sure you will, Steve.  I'm sure that you have been busy PM'ing the 'wider membership' (i.e. people you think you can manipulate).