Author Topic: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85  (Read 1954 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #180 on: July 06, 2017, 09:49:PM »
Oh no we might be back to the phones again. If you read Jeremy's statement again the police don't originally say the call did not happen they seem to just say it should not have been his father that called . But Jeremy asks him to check the phone records to prove the call  . So he seems to think they could have checked ? And there were two lines I think one was a business line.

I know that there was only a single line, but yes JB seemed to think it could be checked, which is why I have a theory that JB made the call to his answering machine to reinforce his alibi.  :-\ Although it now seems that it couldn't be checked.  :-\

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19595
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #181 on: July 06, 2017, 09:50:PM »
I know that there was only a single line, but yes JB seemed to think it could be checked, which is why I have a theory that JB made the call to his answering machine to reinforce his alibi.  :-\ Although it now seems that it couldn't be checked.  :-\

IT COULDN'T  >:( ( ;D)
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #182 on: July 06, 2017, 09:50:PM »
You don't have to if you do your own research - sorry for providing the info, which by the way, CAN be verified. Clearly they said it could be checked out because they were trying to trap MM which meakes it clear that believed Julie when she said Bamber told her MM was the hitman.

So it's ok to lie to get your man then .

Really .

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #183 on: July 06, 2017, 09:51:PM »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34520
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #184 on: July 06, 2017, 09:52:PM »
Yes,business calls weren't separate from house calls being as it was just the one line going into the property so N&J Bamber was run from the same line.

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #185 on: July 06, 2017, 09:53:PM »
I know that there was only a single line, but yes JB seemed to think it could be checked, which is why I have a theory that JB made the call to his answering machine to reinforce his alibi.  :-\ Although it now seems that it couldn't be checked.  :-\

Obviously Jeremy had a stupid alibi that he had not checked out then . And yet he magically managed to have the intelligence to hide every other single bit of evidence . He is a strange one . Stupid or intelligent . Depends on how it fits the situation as far as I can see .

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19595
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #186 on: July 06, 2017, 09:53:PM »
So it's ok to lie to get your man then .

Really .

If you have nothing to hise, it won't matter. You don't think that happens?  ???
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #187 on: July 06, 2017, 09:54:PM »
Yes,business calls weren't separate from house calls being as it was just the one line going into the property so N&J Bamber was run from the same line.

Thank you lookout .

I stand corrected .

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #188 on: July 06, 2017, 09:55:PM »
If you have nothing to hise, it won't matter. You don't think that happens?  ???

Obviously I think it happens there are cases to prove that is what the police have done.

And this might be another one.

Do I think it's morally right ? That's a different matter

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #189 on: July 06, 2017, 10:01:PM »
Obviously Jeremy had a stupid alibi that he had not checked out then . And yet he magically managed to have the intelligence to hide every other single bit of evidence . He is a strange one . Stupid or intelligent . Depends on how it fits the situation as far as I can see .
He had been entering and exiting the windows at White House Farm since childhood. All the other "evidence" he left out on display.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15654
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #190 on: July 06, 2017, 10:07:PM »
Obviously Jeremy had a stupid alibi that he had not checked out then . And yet he magically managed to have the intelligence to hide every other single bit of evidence . He is a strange one . Stupid or intelligent . Depends on how it fits the situation as far as I can see .

Jan think the answer to that one is neither stupid or intelligent just innocent so phone calls,windows and all the other evidence he left not sure what it was but simply does not apply.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19595
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #191 on: July 06, 2017, 10:08:PM »
Obviously I think it happens there are cases to prove that is what the police have done.

And this might be another one.

Do I think it's morally right ? That's a different matter

I don't think the law is  moral animal.
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34520
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #192 on: July 07, 2017, 11:51:AM »
I don't think the law is  moral animal.





It's not meant to be. :o

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #193 on: July 07, 2017, 12:27:PM »
I don't think the law is  moral animal.

that's a another whole deeper discussion.

But if they lied to try and trap Malcolm then its obvious they would be willing to do the same to get Jeremy .

If and why the change happened has yet to be revealed .