Author Topic: The telephone off the hook  (Read 1147 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45179
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #120 on: October 12, 2018, 08:40:AM »
No I wasn't - Yes, you were..I actually tracked down an engineer who worked at the Maldon exchange (Geoff) - he didn't know Bamber and wasn't a personal friend. so, your trying to suggest that because Ian Manley was a personal friend of Jeremy Bambers, that his contribution can't be relied upon in this matter? Well, I beg to differ.. If anyone wants to get the information for themselves, they can email the BT Archives - which doesn't deal with what I am talking about..which are also a good source. It maybe but it is limited information..

https://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/BTgrouparchives/index.htm

Interesting that you're telling us Bamber knew a BT engineer though, yeah, he ran the original Jeremy Bamber .com website.. so much for not understanding how the system worked. Well, Jeremy may not have understood how the system worked back in the day, so what?He certainly had a useful source of information to hand. that might have been the case, but that doesn't alter the fact about an operator being unable to break into a line where a negative and a negative influence is at play! The only people who could do that back in the day were the BT engineers themselves, and even then they weren't supposed to eavesdrop calls, but sometimes had to disconnect the line so that somebody's phone wouldn't work. The only other explanation I can offer, is that police have been known to interfere with telephone connections as part of the telephone telecommunications act warrant they operated under - even now in the modern technogical world the authorities interfere with phone calls all of the time..

Back in the day (August 1985), the operator could only break into a line if the following conditions were met:-

(1) - phone off the hook - negative

(2) - phone off the hook, and no-one trying to contact it - negative / positive

(3) - two users talking on two different phones to one another - positive / positive

However, the operator could not break into a line when the following conditions were met :-

(4) - phone off hook, and someone trying to call them - negative /  negative

Interference by an operator back in the day, was treated as a positive influence, and in order for the operator to be able to break into a line there had to be either a state of equilibrium where there was only a negative condition equalled by the positive influence of the operator, or a condition where the positive influence was greater than the negative! Where the negative influence exceeded the positive one (inclusive of the operator) the operator would have to wait until one or other party replaced the handset of their phone, so that the conditions were met to enable the operator access!



« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 09:16:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13525
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #121 on: October 12, 2018, 10:04:AM »
Do you believe Bamber turned his answering machine off before going to bed on the massacre night ?  Maybe he unplugged his toaster as well.

I've heard of people turning lights off & alarms on before bed.....
You're flogging a dead horse here Adam and it proves nothing.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23118
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #122 on: October 12, 2018, 11:41:AM »

No. The murder suicide is not theoretical. Its a logical inference based on the known facts.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

It looked like a frenzied murder suicide to Vanezis, It looked like a frenzied murder suicide to Prof Knight. If it looks like a frenzied murder suicide to those who know how to differentiate a suicide from a staged suicide and have seen frenzied murder scenes. Then its probably a frenzied murder suicide.

There is no tangible evidence at the scene of crime or anywhere else that indicates any other version of events. To say that scene is staged is to say its a scene of a perfect murder.

Rubbish. It's theoretical based on initial assumptions. It's the lazy answer and one which was easily broken down. All you do is dismiss anything that doesn't fit your theory with childish put downs and silly gifs.

Vanezis didn't visit the scene and stated that had he done so, he'd have had reservations

There are MANY examples of animals that are not what they appear to be;

https://listverse.com/2013/07/20/10-devastatingly-deceptive-or-bizarre-animal-mimics/

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27324
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #123 on: October 12, 2018, 12:58:PM »
Jeremy's vauxhall astra motor vehicle was fitted with a black box tracking device, they knew everywhere that Jeremy went in his car, and the drugs squad had the added intelligence that Julie Mugford' was providing them with as a result of her role of agent provocateur, informant, and low life criminal! For the benefit of this not in the know, I can tell you that Julie Mugford' was deliberately put into Jeremy Bamber, she was never his girlfriend, it was all part of an act, she was receiving massive financial payments from the police for the role she took on...

There is an informants register in London, and her name appears on it, along with all the payments she received for information she provided about Jeremy, his associates and their activities!

You're flogging a dead horse here Adam and it proves nothing.


Rather like the above then, Maggie, eh?

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20502
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #124 on: October 12, 2018, 01:07:PM »
You're flogging a dead horse here Adam and it proves nothing.

Is that all you can post. Again ?

If you want me to provide proof, I have 70 pieces of sourced forensic evidence.

You must believe Bamber turned his answering machine off before going to bed ? Otherwise there was no call from Nevill.

Why do you think Nevill wanted to leave a message on Bamber's answering machine, which Nevill would assume was turned on ?

When the answering machine did not come on, why did Nevill continue waiting several minutes, optimistically hopeing Bamber would answer ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6131
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #125 on: October 12, 2018, 04:16:PM »
Rubbish. It's theoretical based on initial assumptions. It's the lazy answer and one which was easily broken down. All you do is dismiss anything that doesn't fit your theory with childish put downs and silly gifs.

Vanezis didn't visit the scene and stated that had he done so, he'd have had reservations

There are MANY examples of animals that are not what they appear to be;

https://listverse.com/2013/07/20/10-devastatingly-deceptive-or-bizarre-animal-mimics/


If its so easily broken down then break it down. So far your only answer is to insist its staged and staged so well you cant see that's its staged  ;D

The crime scene appeared like a murder suicide not just to laymen eyes but also to the trained pathologists. = FACT

Vanezis thought that the staged crime theory was "Almost too incedible to believe" = FACT

Bernard Knight thought the idea of a staged suicicde would be "Extraordinary" = FACT

The crime was staged by someone so well the pathologist cannot tell. = THEORY

Someone coerced Sheila into doing it all. So thats why it looks that way! = THEORY

PS: None of those animals look like something else. That spider is clearly not an ant and that Butterfly is clearly not an Owl! Other examples are the same species just different breeds. I would bet that butterfly does not sound like like owl either. Stupid article



« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 04:19:PM by David1819 »
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27324
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #126 on: October 12, 2018, 04:37:PM »

If its so easily broken down then break it down. So far your only answer is to insist its staged and staged so well you cant see that's its staged  ;D

The crime scene appeared like a murder suicide not just to laymen eyes but also to the trained pathologists. = FACT

Vanezis thought that the staged crime theory was "Almost too incedible to believe" = FACT

Bernard Knight thought the idea of a staged suicicde would be "Extraordinary" = FACT

The crime was staged by someone so well the pathologist cannot tell. = THEORY

Someone coerced Sheila into doing it all. So thats why it looks that way! = THEORY

PS: None of those animals look like something else. That spider is clearly not an ant and that Butterfly is clearly not an Owl! Other examples are the same species just different breeds. I would bet that butterfly does not sound like like owl either. Stupid article


Can you please find a dictionary in which "extraordinary" is synonymous with "impossible" and "almost to incedible (your spelling) to believe" means something couldn't have happened. Where is it said, by ANY of the names you put forward, that what occurred at WHF, was categorically NOT 5 murders?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10661
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #127 on: October 12, 2018, 05:57:PM »

If its so easily broken down then break it down. So far your only answer is to insist its staged and staged so well you cant see that's its staged  ;D

The crime scene appeared like a murder suicide not just to laymen eyes but also to the trained pathologists. = FACT

Vanezis thought that the staged crime theory was "Almost too incedible to believe" = FACT

Bernard Knight thought the idea of a staged suicicde would be "Extraordinary" = FACT

The crime was staged by someone so well the pathologist cannot tell. = THEORY

Someone coerced Sheila into doing it all. So thats why it looks that way! = THEORY

PS: None of those animals look like something else. That spider is clearly not an ant and that Butterfly is clearly not an Owl! Other examples are the same species just different breeds. I would bet that butterfly does not sound like like owl either. Stupid article

Vanezis's words were "anyone who did such a thing must be a nutter". Well there are plenty of members here who think that's just what he must be.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23118
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #128 on: October 12, 2018, 06:46:PM »

If its so easily broken down then break it down. So far your only answer is to insist its staged and staged so well you cant see that's its staged  ;D - You can see it's staged.

Jeremy's idea to buy a semi-automatic rifle (pre-planning)
Gun/ammo  conveniently left out on the night of the murders
No evidence of other victims blood on Sheila.
Looks like she is wearing false nails and not one damaged
Gun falls neatly across her body, fingers across the trigger area.
Clearly had been dead for quite some time
No suicide note
Choice of death location doesn't fit
Never missed a target
ALL victims were 'executed' with head shots - other shots for effect or to incapacitate
No evidence of a phone call
Unlikely that Sheila would have a psychotic episode as she was medicated and a moderate dose of the medication was still in her system



The crime scene appeared like a murder suicide not just to laymen eyes but also to the trained pathologists. = FACT - Initially! - FACT!

Vanezis thought that the staged crime theory was "Almost too incedible to believe" = FACT - he said that if he has SEEN the crime scene for himself, he would have had concerns - FACT!

Bernard Knight thought the idea of a staged suicicde would be "Extraordinary" = FACT - and?

The crime was staged by someone so well the pathologist cannot tell. = THEORY - You think that hasn't happened before?  ;D ;D

Someone coerced Sheila into doing it all. So thats why it looks that way! = THEORY - Where have I said this?

PS: None of those animals look like something else. That spider is clearly not an ant and that Butterfly is clearly not an Owl! Other examples are the same species just different breeds. I would bet that butterfly does not sound like like owl either. Stupid article.



« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 06:50:PM by Caroline »

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #129 on: October 12, 2018, 07:19:PM »
The fact remains again that the phone calls prove nothing either way
There’s not a barrister or solicitor who would defend Jeremy if the phone calls proved guilt

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23118
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #130 on: October 12, 2018, 09:01:PM »
The fact remains again that the phone calls prove nothing either way
There’s not a barrister or solicitor who would defend Jeremy if the phone calls proved guilt

They do and they would! Ask NGB, everyone has a right to be defended!

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27324
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #131 on: October 12, 2018, 09:29:PM »
The fact remains again that the phone calls prove nothing either way
There’s not a barrister or solicitor who would defend Jeremy if the phone calls proved guilt


Bottom line is there's sod all squared they could do about it. Their job is to defend. It really doesn't matter whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. They're entitled to be defended. I'll bet there aren't many who'd admit guilt to the person whose job it is to get them off.....................and I'll bet that NO barrister/solicitor will ask the question.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 07:50:AM by Jane »

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23118
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #132 on: October 12, 2018, 10:55:PM »
Back in the day (August 1985), the operator could only break into a line if the following conditions were met:-

(1) - phone off the hook - negative

(2) - phone off the hook, and no-one trying to contact it - negative / positive

(3) - two users talking on two different phones to one another - positive / positive

However, the operator could not break into a line when the following conditions were met :-

(4) - phone off hook, and someone trying to call them - negative /  negative

Interference by an operator back in the day, was treated as a positive influence, and in order for the operator to be able to break into a line there had to be either a state of equilibrium where there was only a negative condition equalled by the positive influence of the operator, or a condition where the positive influence was greater than the negative! Where the negative influence exceeded the positive one (inclusive of the operator) the operator would have to wait until one or other party replaced the handset of their phone, so that the conditions were met to enable the operator access!

Leaving aside the positive v's negative stuff .....

Just to clarify, are you saying that the BT engineer (Ian) told you that there were different tones for engaged and off the hook?

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20502
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #133 on: October 13, 2018, 10:34:AM »
It seems that all of the hundreds of Bamber supporters believe he switched his answering machine off before going to bed. Otherwise the call from Nevill did not happen.

The two most useful times an anwsering machine would be on is if not at home or sleeping. Although as said, they were on 24/7 for lots of reasons.

The judge was right saying Nevill's call was 'mysterious' -  'difficult or impossible to understand or explain'.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45179
Re: The telephone off the hook
« Reply #134 on: October 14, 2018, 09:28:AM »
Leaving aside the positive v's negative stuff .....

Just to clarify, are you saying that the BT engineer (Ian) told you that there were different tones for engaged and off the hook?

No, same tone, but dependant on the technical state of a phone line when operator did her/his check up, the operator might be able to break into the line, or might have to wait until one party or another vacated use of the telephone they were in control of, at (a) or (b) - if the state of the phone line an operator was checking was Simply 'negative' (phone off the hook) the operator could break into the line (positive influence) because the negative situation was "matched' by influence of the operator,. Similarly, if the phone line had a 'negative' / 'positive' state, at the time an operator was making a check, the operator would be able to break into a line because the 'positive' influence of an operator checking such a line would be such that a Negative / positive / positive condition is met! A negative / positive condition was met, when a different set of circumstances were prevalent, such as in the following examples:-

Phone (a) is off the hook, and (b) the operator is trying to break into the line, which can be successful

Phone (a) and phone (b) are is use in the following set of circumstances, there has been a call in progress between phone (a) and phone (b), but that one or other of the caller's, then for whatever cause or reason they put the handset of one or other phones down, off its hook, and after this has been done, the operator decides to make a call to check either -  either to called (a) or (b)..

But..

When phone (a) ends up with its handest 'off the hook', when either a call was in progress  between caller (a) and caller (b), or vice versa, the state of the line between both parties would be a positive / positive condition, and the operator (positive influence) could break into the phone line, because the positive status of the line was greater to that required in order to allow an operator to be able to  break into a telephone line, which is / are (1) a negative condition, (2) a negative / positive condition, (3) a positive / positive condition..

However, an operator would not be able to break into a telephone line, where none of the aforementioned conditions are met, where for example, phone (a) is simple off the hook (no connection to any caller) and phone (b) decides to call caller (a) . These circumstances create / produce a negative / negative situation which cannot be overridden, or broken into, because the total sum of influences would be negative / negative, and could not be at least matched by the positive influence of the operators actions!

Ian Manley (BT engineer)
« Last Edit: October 14, 2018, 11:24:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...