Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: IndigoJ on October 05, 2018, 11:58:AM

Title: The telephone off the hook
Post by: IndigoJ on October 05, 2018, 11:58:AM
So, the telephone that NB used was the one in the kitchen which was found off the hook , right? the argument put forward by the prosecution was that as NB had been shot upstairs he couldn't have made the call because of his wounds he wouldnt have been able to speak plus there was no blood on the receiver. Well, who says he didn't make the call BEFORE he went back upstairs and was shot?


thoughts?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 05, 2018, 12:42:PM
So, the telephone that NB used was the one in the kitchen which was found off the hook , right? the argument put forward by the prosecution was that as NB had been shot upstairs he couldn't have made the call because of his wounds he wouldnt have been able to speak plus there was no blood on the receiver. Well, who says he didn't make the call BEFORE he went back upstairs and was shot?


thoughts?

Those who claim Nevill was shot in bed.


Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 05, 2018, 03:13:PM
Those who claim Nevill was shot in bed.


However this claim has many problems. Bloodstains and shell casings do do not support this notion.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 05, 2018, 07:23:PM
It's not certain that it was the round finger dial telephone which had its handset off the hook from 3.42am, until 3.55am, and that it was this same phone which became mysteriously engaged from 5.55am until 6.09am when the operator patched the engaged line from white house farm to the control room at Chelmsford police station via the '999' emergency system, allowing for constant monitoring of noises, movement, and voices right up until 8.15am, when the connection was terminated! My understanding of what took place at 5.55am inside the farmhouse, was that one of two things happened, (1) somebody who was still alive inside the farmhouse, simply unplugged the lead from its socket, so that there wasn't effectively a phone off the hook any further from that point on, and that the 2nd phone was used to request an ambulance using the '999' system, or that (2) somebody inside the farmhouse at 5.55am used the 2nd phone to try and request an ambulance, but because the handset of the first phone was still off the hook, the two phones acted like an intercom, which effectively meant that when the line was rechecked at 5.55am, the operator no longer had a phone off the hook back at the farmhouse, she got an engaged tone due to the fact that both handsets were off the hook, and the two telephones acted like an intercom!

For this to have happened, someone had to still have been alive inside the farmhouse at 5.55am...

This is a significant discovery because it lends support for the firearm officers being engaged in conversation with a person from inside the farmhouse, at 5.25am...
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 05, 2018, 07:40:PM
Furthermore, what also becomes increasingly likely, was that at around 6.09am when the operator patched the engaged line (the intercom connection between the two telephones in use inside the farmhouse) from white House Farm to the control room at Chelmsford Police Station, that the handset of at least one of the two telephones back at the scene, must have been either (a) replaced back upon its reciever, or (b) unplugged at its socket leaving (c) one of the handsets still off the hook throughout the period 6.09am until 8.15am...
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 05, 2018, 08:08:PM
It it is somewhat remarkable that these events which were unfolding at White House Farm between 5.25am, 5.55am, and 6.09am, should all be earmarked as occasions involving at least one living person inside the farmhouse, and that in a news paper article, published in the Daily Express, and penned by Kim Sengupta, should lose the following observation - 'Who was the scruffy looking hunched man, seen walking away from the farmhouse about an hour after the police first arrived at the scene'?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 05, 2018, 08:10:PM
'Who was the scruffy looking hunched man, seen walking away from the farmhouse about an hour after the police first arrived at the scene'?

Was this a reference to the uniformed officers arriving at the scene (3.48am), or to the arrival at the scene of the first group of firearm officers under the Command of PS Adams, at 5.00am?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 05, 2018, 08:18:PM
Seems to me, that after the cops changed the nature of their investigation into this shooting tragedy, that they believed there had been an accomplice of Jeremy Bambers, and possibly, Sheila Caffell's, too...

Since, although the police are reluctant to have to admit that they shot Sheila and killed her in a somewhat set of bizzarre circumstances, they know that Sheila had been alive inside the farmhouse throughout the entire duration of the seige...

Cops needed a name they could put to the accomplice, the person who might have been manipulating the two telephones inside the premises at around 5.55am and 6.09am (about an hour after the arrival at the scene of the first group of firearm officers), had the accomplice slipped the net, and simply walked away from the incident? Was the hit man, or the accomplice, the scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from the farmhouse after 6.09am?

Who saw him?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 06, 2018, 02:37:AM
Mathew MacDonald and Freddie Emani, were two such suspects..
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 06, 2018, 03:20:AM
Mathew MacDonald and Freddie Emani, were two such suspects..

Freddie Emani was involved in the drugs scene, and brought from London to Essex to be interviewed under caution!
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 06, 2018, 10:34:AM
So, the telephone that NB used was the one in the kitchen which was found off the hook , right? the argument put forward by the prosecution was that as NB had been shot upstairs he couldn't have made the call because of his wounds he wouldnt have been able to speak plus there was no blood on the receiver. Well, who says he didn't make the call BEFORE he went back upstairs and was shot?


thoughts?

Some supporters have theories on when Nevill made his 2/4 second 8/11 word phone call. Others refuse to speculate.

David believes Nevill phoned Bamber after Sheila started shooting the twins. While others believe Sheila held Nevill at rifle point & made Nevill make the phone call.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: IndigoJ on October 06, 2018, 01:30:PM
Some supporters have theories on when Nevill made his 2/4 second 8/11 word phone call. Others refuse to speculate.

David believes Nevill phoned Bamber after Sheila started shooting the twins. While others believe Sheila held Nevill at rifle point & made Nevill make the phone call.

If one believes Jeremy is innocent one has to believe that NB made the call before he was shot , so imo the view that NB was making the call while SB was shooting the twins fits that scenario
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 06, 2018, 02:08:PM
If one believes Jeremy is innocent one has to believe that NB made the call before he was shot , so imo the view that NB was making the call while SB was shooting the twins fits that scenario

Do you believe that is the most likely scenario ?

Why do you believe Nevill would phone Jeremy after Sheila started shooting the twins ?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 06, 2018, 03:30:PM
You shouldn’t rely on the alleged locations where four spent cartridge cases were claimed to have been found inside the main bedroom, these being those referred to by the exhibit references, DRH/4, DRH/3, DRH/2 And DRH/1, which were introduced into the master bedroom crime scene on the instruction of Police Inspector Miller, who instructed that the original exhibits bearing those exhibit references should be allocated different exhibit references to vacate DRH/4, DRH/3, DRH/2 and DRH/1 so that four spent cartridge cases could be introduced into the master bedroom crime scene..

Of course, there will be those amongst you who choose not to believe that this is what took place, but this sleight of hand manoeuvre is documented in Police Inspector Millers own handwriting, and rather astonishingly he is instructing DC Hammersley to introduce the alterations in his witness statement..

So, there you have it..

Four spent cartridge cases added to the master bedroom crime scene...

DRH/1 And DRH/2 being the two spent cartridge cases closest to where the cops staged Sheila Caffells death scene as a suicide on the main bedroom floor, and the other two  introduced spent cartridge cases (DRH/3 And DRH/4) attributed as being associated with the shooting twice of Neville Bambers inside the master bedroom...

For a start, Sheila was only shot once upstairs in the master bedroom, she was initially shot downstairs in the kitchen, and so one of the two bullet cases which were introduced as having been found close to her body, was a third cartridge case introduced into the main bedroom purporting to show that Neville Bambers had been shot at three times when he was present in the main bedroom, and a fourth non fatal shot as her fled down the main stairs pursued by his eventual killer..

Three of the four introduced spent cartridge cases which have been dishonestly included as having been found in the master bedroom were designed to impact upon the suggestion that Neville Bambers had been shot twice, once in the mouth, and a second shot to his jaw which would have prevented him being able to talk to anyone on the telephone before he had even got downstairs...

There exists clear evidence that Police Inspector Miller And DC Hammersley conspired to pervert the course of justice when they introduced the four spent bullet cases into the main bedroom crime scene, which had not originally been present there, or found there..
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 06, 2018, 03:36:PM
You cannot trust Essex Police to do anything properly, they tampered with all aspects of exhibits to frame Jeremy Bamber for all five deaths, when they knew that Sheila must have killed the other four, and of course the cops shot Sheila in somewhat truly bizarre circumstances, once downstairs in the kitchen, and on a second occasion upstairs on the master bedroom floor, after her body had been lifted off the bed and placed there on the bedroom floor..
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: IndigoJ on October 06, 2018, 03:41:PM
was any of NB's blood found upstairs?

Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: IndigoJ on October 06, 2018, 03:44:PM
Do you believe that is the most likely scenario ?

Why do you believe Nevill would phone Jeremy after Sheila started shooting the twins ?

 a phone call was made from the house, so who made it? if you think JB is the killer he could have made it but then he would have needed an accomplice to pick up the call at his cottage, and there is no evidence he had an accomplice.  NB could have started the call and then SB could have started killing the twins , I don't believe he would have called AFTER she started killing the twins that is if NB had been aware she was killing the twins it would be more likely he would have called 999
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 06, 2018, 03:52:PM
a phone call was made from the house, so who made it? if you think JB is the killer he could have made it but then he would have needed an accomplice to pick up the call at his cottage, and there is no evidence he had an accomplice.  NB could have started the call and then SB could have started killing the twins , I don't believe he would have called AFTER she started killing the twins that is if NB had been aware she was killing the twins it would be more likely he would have called 999

Why would he need someone to pick it up ? There were no phone records stating how long a call lasted in 1985.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: IndigoJ on October 06, 2018, 03:57:PM
Why would he need someone to pick it up ? There were no phone records stating how long a call lasted in 1985.

didn't the records show whether the call had been answered or not?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: IndigoJ on October 06, 2018, 03:59:PM
Why would he need someone to pick it up ? There were no phone records stating how long a call lasted in 1985.

how did they used to bill for calls then?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Steve_uk on October 06, 2018, 04:21:PM
how did they used to bill for calls then?

I think some members came to the conclusion several years ago that for international calls there would be a time shown on the bill but not for local calls. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,549.0.html
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Steve_uk on October 06, 2018, 04:27:PM
So, the telephone that NB used was the one in the kitchen which was found off the hook , right? the argument put forward by the prosecution was that as NB had been shot upstairs he couldn't have made the call because of his wounds he wouldnt have been able to speak plus there was no blood on the receiver. Well, who says he didn't make the call BEFORE he went back upstairs and was shot?


thoughts?

You see again this is why many members have changed stance, jumping through a succession of hoops in order to make Jeremy innocent: Nevill reached a telephone and managed to call Police, who concealed the call from their boss DCI Jones, Nevill called Jeremy, who just happened to pick up the telephone immediately so there was no record on his answerphone, Sheila cut off the call downstairs meaning Jeremy couldn't communicate with the Farm thereafter, Julie's statements were all a pack of lies, Police shot Sheila twice.


I could go on..
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 07, 2018, 08:26:AM
how did they used to bill for calls then?

Believe it was fixed charges. Certainly not itemised billing showing a call had been made which was answered & lasted 2 minutes 5 seconds.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 07, 2018, 12:27:PM
Believe it was fixed charges. Certainly not itemised billing showing a call had been made which was answered & lasted 2 minutes 5 seconds.

Incoming calls were not billed to the Bambers, unless the operator contacted them and asked them if they agreed to call charges being reversed. Outgoing calls were calculated using a metering facility which racked up units at the local exchange. Bills were calculated dependant upon how many units were used, during fixed prime time and cheap rate periods during the day time, evenings and week-end.

I found out from a retired BT engineer, that it would have been possible to break down all the individual calls which had been made from white house farm, by carrying out work at the local exchange using specialised equipment but it seems that if Essex police went to such trouble, that for one reason or another if they did, then they have not disclosed that information!

I believe that Essex police did go to the trouble of trying to establish whether or not a call was made from white house farm to Jeremy's cottage by checking the equipment at the local exchange, and got it confirmed that such a call did take place, which was why they seized Jeremy's answer phone and five audio tapes. But, this was considered irrelevant for disclosure purposes because of the fact that the telephones at the scene and Jeremy's cottage were subject of an eavesdrop under the telecommunications act warrant as part of an ongoing drugs squad operation!. Essex police know that Neville Bamber had made that call to Jeremy, and that this call was followed by Neville's 3.26am call to the police - they knew this because of the ongoing surveillance that was already underway from prior to the time of the shooting tragedies, and afterwards..
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 07, 2018, 01:13:PM
You see again this is why many members have changed stance, jumping through a succession of hoops in order to make Jeremy innocent: Nevill reached a telephone and managed to call Police, yes, he did..who concealed the call from their boss DCI Jones, there's no evidence that Neville's calls to Jeremy, followed by his call to police had been kept from DCI Jones. DI Soane's who was running the surveillance on Jeremy and his drug acquaintances had all this information at his fingertips, and almost certainly contacted, or was in contact with DCI Jones regarding these matters.. Nevill called Jeremy, who just happened to pick up the telephone immediately so there was no record on his answerphone, there's nothing suspicious in the fact that Jeremy answered Neville's call before the answer phone machine became activated, since the calls to and from white house farm, and Jeremy's cottage were already being monitored as part of a nationwide and international drugs operation being conducted by DI Soane's and the drugs squad from Southend on Sea police station..Sheila cut off the call downstairs meaning Jeremy couldn't communicate with the Farm thereafter, no, Neville cut the call short himself, then obtained a fresh dialling tone and he phoned the police at 3.26am.. Julie's statements were all a pack of lies, much of what was put in her statements was written by DS Jones, who knew what needed to be said so that the police could prosecute Jeremy for the murders, including Sheila's murder which the police themselves were responsible for doing! It can be said that they murdered her because of the way the police themselves have tried to conceal their involvement in different parts of the farmhouse with Sheila, and tampering with the crime scene ammunition used to shoot her with, so that they could dishonestly treat her death as a one gun crime! A silencer was also dishonestly introduced into the fray, which served to point the finger of suspicion away from their own involvement in Sheila's death...Police shot Sheila twice. well, she certainly didn't shoot herself downstairs in the kitchen with the rifle which she is supposed to have been shot by, because when cops said she was dead in the kitchen, that rifle was still resting against the inside of the box room window. If Sheila wasn't shot downstairs in the kitchen during or just prior to her body being confirmed as being present there in the kitchen between 7.35am and 8.10am, what other method had been used to kill her by that stage? Police records have Sheila's body on the floor in the Laundry room (7.30am), they had her body in the kitchen next door (7.35am - 8.10am), they had her body on the far side of the bed (8.44am), they had her body laid on top of the bed (9.05am), and by 9.30pm her body ends up on the main bedroom floor...

I could go on..Why not then, because everyone needs to know what actually happened once firearm officers entered the farmhouse, and later on when the police themselves staged Sheila's death as a suicide on the main bedroom floor, using a rifle which had been resting against the inside of a first floor window since before the police entered the premises! The rifle wasn't with Sheila's body when Collins and Delgado peered in through the Laundry room window at about 7.30am! The rifle wasn't in the kitchen when she was reportedly dead there (between 7.35am and 8.10am). The rifle that they staged her death scene with was subsequently brought from the window in the box room next door into the main bedroom and ended up alongside her body by 8.44am, it ended up resting on the bed in-between the bodies of Sheila and June by 9.05am. it ended up leaning against the inside of the main bedroom window, and eventually ended upon Sheila's chest sometime after 9.30am, because the Coroner's Officer who viewed Sheila's body at that time states that she had two bullet entry wounds to her neck, but that the rifle had already been removed from her body by that stage! 

We now discover, that blood from all the other four victims was found to be present on Sheila Caffell's light blue nightdress by 6th September 1985, but that non of this evidence was mentioned in any witness statement by the Lab' experts, or spoken about when they testified during the trial - it's as though such key evidence has been deliberately concealed from the people who needed to know. I am one hundred percent certain that had this evidence been given to the jury that they would have found Jeremy Bamber ' not guilty'...
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 07, 2018, 02:46:PM
Nobody has disproven that Neville Bamber made that call to Jeremy, in the same way that nobody has disproved that the call made to police at 3.26am was made by Neville Bamber...
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 07, 2018, 04:43:PM
was any of NB's blood found upstairs?


Some in the hallway
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: IndigoJ on October 07, 2018, 04:47:PM
the hallway being downstairs?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 07, 2018, 04:50:PM
the hallway being downstairs?

No upstairs
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 07, 2018, 06:47:PM

Some in the hallway

'O' type blood found on wallpaper, doesn't mean it was Neville Bambers blood, as both child victims also had 'O' type blood..
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Caroline on October 08, 2018, 04:30:PM
a phone call was made from the house, so who made it? if you think JB is the killer he could have made it but then he would have needed an accomplice to pick up the call at his cottage, and there is no evidence he had an accomplice.  NB could have started the call and then SB could have started killing the twins , I don't believe he would have called AFTER she started killing the twins that is if NB had been aware she was killing the twins it would be more likely he would have called 999

There is no evidence that any call was made from WHF.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 08, 2018, 07:54:PM
There is no evidence that any call was made from WHF.

Unfortunately, a call was made from white house farm to Jeremy's cottage, and therefore two different ways you can look at this matter!

Firstly, (a) you can look at it on the basis that Jeremy was the killer, in which he needed to be able to prove that such a call had been made from the scene to his cottage, and secondly, (b) you could look at this matter on the footing that he (Jeremy) did receive such a call and that he was not the killer...

The guilters' are guilty of ignoring any information or evidence which tends to support Jeremy Bambers innocence, rather than accepting the fact that one way or another, the call from white house farm would have needed to be established as having occurred!

The guilters', want their cake, and they want to eat it all themselves!

It stands to reason that in whatever manner the news that there was something going on back at the farmhouse, that such a call as was being claimed had been made and was recieved by Jeremy, would need to be verified!

Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 08, 2018, 07:58:PM
Please...

Why would Jeremy make such a claim that his father had made that call to him, if for one moment he couldn't expect it to be proven that such a call had been made by his father?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 08, 2018, 07:59:PM
Please...

Why would Jeremy make such a claim that his father had made that call to him, if for one moment he couldn't expect it to be proven that such a call had been made by his father?

I am saying to you all, that it can be proven that Neville Bamber had made that call to Jeremy, followed by his call to police at 3.26am..
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Steve_uk on October 08, 2018, 09:43:PM
Unfortunately, a call was made from white house farm to Jeremy's cottage, and therefore two different ways you can look at this matter!

Firstly, (a) you can look at it on the basis that Jeremy was the killer, in which he needed to be able to prove that such a call had been made from the scene to his cottage, and secondly, (b) you could look at this matter on the footing that he (Jeremy) did receive such a call and that he was not the killer...

The guilters' are guilty of ignoring any information or evidence which tends to support Jeremy Bambers innocence, rather than accepting the fact that one way or another, the call from white house farm would have needed to be established as having occurred!

The guilters', want their cake, and they want to eat it all themselves!


It stands to reason that in whatever manner the news that there was something going on back at the farmhouse, that such a call as was being claimed had been made and was recieved by Jeremy, would need to be verified!
No we wonder why a call was concealed by the authorities at such an early stage.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Caroline on October 08, 2018, 10:33:PM
Unfortunately, a call was made from white house farm to Jeremy's cottage, and therefore two different ways you can look at this matter!

Firstly, (a) you can look at it on the basis that Jeremy was the killer, in which he needed to be able to prove that such a call had been made from the scene to his cottage, and secondly, (b) you could look at this matter on the footing that he (Jeremy) did receive such a call and that he was not the killer...

The guilters' are guilty of ignoring any information or evidence which tends to support Jeremy Bambers innocence, rather than accepting the fact that one way or another, the call from white house farm would have needed to be established as having occurred!

The guilters', want their cake, and they want to eat it all themselves!

It stands to reason that in whatever manner the news that there was something going on back at the farmhouse, that such a call as was being claimed had been made and was recieved by Jeremy, would need to be verified!

I hate cake - what evidence?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 09, 2018, 02:21:AM
No we wonder why a call was concealed by the authorities at such an early stage.


This is from Julie's September 8th 1985 statement.


Page 14


"He said before he had phoned me that morning Mathew had phoned from the house, which I took to be the farm, and said that everything had been completed"


Page 15

He also told me that there would be a phone call made from the house because the last phone call made would be recorded. He said the call would be made from the White House to his house. He didn’t say who would make it or why.

Whoever was getting Julie to say this needed her to peddle a version of events whereby a call took place from WHF to Goldhanger around 3.15am only that it was not Nevill making that call.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Jane on October 09, 2018, 08:06:AM
I am saying to you all, that it can be proven that Neville Bamber had made that call to Jeremy, followed by his call to police at 3.26am..

It's quite useless to say 'it' can be proven without A) 'it' having BEEN proven B) providing IRREFUTABLE proof of how it was. To the best of my knowledge, any way of proving negatives has yet to be discovered. SUCH a shame Jeremy had switched off his answering machine, don't you think? Not only would he A) (not having a bedside phone) have not needed to get himself out of bed and downstairs at silly o'clock B) could have allowed the answer machine to pick up the message.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 09, 2018, 08:17:AM
Answering machines are left on 24/7.

Nevill would only ring to leave a message on Bamber's answering machine while he was sleeping. Although this doesn't help Nevill.

Bamber would have supplied the message to the police the following day.

So there was no call from Nevill.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: maggie on October 09, 2018, 10:46:AM
Answering machines are left on 24/7.

Nevill would only ring to leave a message on Bamber's answering machine while he was sleeping. Although this doesn't help Nevill.

Bamber would have supplied the message to the police the following day.

So there was no call from Nevill.
Unfortunately, you have no proof that answering machinrs are left on 24/7.'.back in 1985 Mine certainly wasn't.  If you were in and available to answer your phone it was switched off as so annoying to not answer before the machine kicked in.  Sometimes you would forget to switch it on at night or choose not to.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Caroline on October 09, 2018, 10:47:AM

This is from Julie's September 8th 1985 statement.


Page 14


"He said before he had phoned me that morning Mathew had phoned from the house, which I http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.phptook to be the farm, and said that everything had been completed"


Page 15

He also told me that there would be a phone call made from the house because the last phone call made would be recorded. He said the call would be made from the White House to his house. He didn’t say who would make it or why.

Whoever was getting Julie to say this needed her to peddle a version of events whereby a call took place from WHF to Goldhanger around 3.15am only that it was not Nevill making that call.

Jeremy told her - no one else had reason to bring anyone else into the equation.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Janet (Formerly known as on October 09, 2018, 11:06:AM
Doesn't Mugford contradict herself in those two sentences? First she says Bamber told her that Mathew had phoned from the house, then she says he told her there would be a call from the house but didn't say who would make it or why.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Jane on October 09, 2018, 11:08:AM
Unfortunately, you have no proof that answering machinrs are left on 24/7.'.back in 1985 Mine certainly wasn't.  If you were in and available to answer your phone it was switched off as so annoying to not answer before the machine kicked in.  Sometimes you would forget to switch it on at night or choose not to.

Presumably, if one was going to be out all day, ie having an away-day or sitting in a tractor, an answering machine, unless one forgot?, would be switched on. Jeremy tells us that he had "a quick bath". He also goes into lengthy detail about programmes he watched. He makes no mention of coming in from work, listening to messages before switching off the answer machine to ensure his sleep wasn't disturbed. We can apply "what if's" to every situation till cows return.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: maggie on October 09, 2018, 11:32:AM
Presumably, if one was going to be out all day, ie having an away-day or sitting in a tractor, an answering machine, unless one forgot?, would be switched on. Jeremy tells us that he had "a quick bath". He also goes into lengthy detail about programmes he watched. He makes no mention of coming in from work, listening to messages before switching off the answer machine to ensure his sleep wasn't disturbed. We can apply "what if's" to every situation till cows return.
Of cause we can, however opinions and sweeping statements prove absolutely nothing whichever side of the fence one argues from.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Jane on October 09, 2018, 11:39:AM
Of cause we can, however opinions and sweeping statements prove absolutely nothing whichever side of the fence one argues from.


I try very hard to only give my own opinions...................and even harder to prevent my statements from sweeping ;D
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: maggie on October 09, 2018, 12:03:PM

I try very hard to only give my own opinions...................and even harder to prevent my statements from sweeping ;D
I'm sure you do and I was commenting on a particular post from Adam.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 09, 2018, 01:05:PM
Unfortunately, you have no proof that answering machinrs are left on 24/7.'.back in 1985 Mine certainly wasn't.  If you were in and available to answer your phone it was switched off as so annoying to not answer before the machine kicked in.  Sometimes you would forget to switch it on at night or choose not to.

Answering machines are left on 24/7. You know this.

The CT must make a statement on how Bamber answered his phone within 10 seconds & on why Nevill wanted to leave a message on Bamber's answering machine.

Bamber has said himself he had one downstairs phone & he was 'awoken' from sleeping 'like a log''
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 09, 2018, 01:10:PM
Mike said Bamber had an answering machine. I also found a source for this yesterday.

Bamber has never said he turned his answering machine off when arriving back at his cottage. He wouldn't as no one ever would.

The CT must explain how something that would take several minutes, took less than 10 seconds - answering Nevill's call.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 09, 2018, 01:23:PM
Bamber has said what he did when arriving back at his cottage -

Rang Julie (although cannot remember the conversation).

Watched TV. About skin heads.

Didn't eat.

Had a bath.

Went to bed.

His answering machine would have been on all day while he was at WHF. He would not turn it off if he was going straight to bed & back to work first thing in the morning. No one would & he has never said he did.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: maggie on October 09, 2018, 02:26:PM
Answering machines are left on 24/7. You know this.

The CT must make a statement on how Bamber answered his phone within 10 seconds & on why Nevill wanted to leave a message on Bamber's answering machine.

Bamber has said himself he had one downstairs phone & he was 'awoken' from sleeping 'like a log''
Adam, my answer machine was not switched on 24 hours a day. Back then things were very different. I was simply pointing out that you had made a sweeping statement, I was not trying to prove anything else. It was a statement of facr, that is all
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 10, 2018, 07:33:AM
Answering machines are just as useful when the person is at home.

A person could be sleeping, in the shower, cooking, with company, vaccumming, watching television, playing loud music, in the garden, under a sun bed or simply not want to talk to anyone. So it would be on 24/7.

Bamber said he had a bath & went to bed. The perfect times to have his answering machine on.

The CT need to explain how he was 'awoken' from sleeping 'like a log' & got to the 'downstairs kitchen phone' within 10 seconds, rather than 3 minutes. As well as why Nevill wanted to leave a message on Bamber's answering machine.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 10, 2018, 08:14:AM
It has to be assummed that Bamber's phone was very loud & both the bedroom & kitchen doors were open. Otherwise he would not hear the phone, even if awake.

Nevill would not know what doors were open/closed & had rang at 3am to leave a message, although that was not going to assist him at WHF.

Hopefully Mike or the CT can explain how Bamber got to the phone before the answering machine came on & Nevill could leave his message on it.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: maggie on October 10, 2018, 11:46:AM
It has to be assummed that Bamber's phone was very loud & both the bedroom & kitchen doors were open. Otherwise he would not hear the phone, even if awake.

Nevill would not know what doors were open/closed & had rang at 3am to leave a message, although that was not going to assist him at WHF.

Hopefully Mike or the CT can explain how Bamber got to the phone before the answering machine came on & Nevill could leave his message on it.
I am not sure, can't remember but I think there was a choice of length of time before an answer phone cut in.  Unless we know the interval before his answer phone cut in it is difficult to judge whether he did have time to wake and answer the phone if the answer phone was switched on.
 I believe his cottage was tiny and his bedroom was at the top of the stairs and the phone at the bottom. 
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 10, 2018, 01:07:PM
I am not sure, can't remember but I think there was a choice of length of time before an answer phone cut in.  Unless we know the interval before his answer phone cut in it is difficult to judge whether he did have time to wake and answer the phone if the answer phone was switched on.
 I believe his cottage was tiny and his bedroom was at the top of the stairs and the phone at the bottom.

You can choose the amount of rings before an answering machine starts. Suspect this will always be between 3-8 rings. If it is much more, the caller would have hung up before the answering machine starts.

This gives Bamber between 5-10 seconds.

Bamber's own evidence that he 'slept like a log', waa 'awoken' by the call & the phone was downstairs 'in the kitchen' makes it impossible he answered the phone within 5-10 seconds.



Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 03:57:PM
You can choose the amount of rings before an answering machine starts. Suspect this will always be between 3-8 rings. If it is much more, the caller would have hung up before the answering machine starts.

This gives Bamber between 5-10 seconds.

Bamber's own evidence that he 'slept like a log', waa 'awoken' by the call & the phone was downstairs 'in the kitchen' makes it impossible he answered the phone within 5-10 seconds.
Which phone was down stairs?

His house phone, or his answer phone?

Please direct me to the source of evidence where you got this information from, because it's news to me, and if Iv'e missed something as fundamental a fact as this I want my head chopping off..
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 04:27:PM
Which phone was down stairs?

His house phone, or his answer phone?

Please direct me to the source of evidence where you got this information from, because it's news to me, and if Iv'e missed something as fundamental a fact as this I want my head chopping off..

As far as I am aware there was no mention of where the telephone handset that Jeremy picked up when Neville made his call to him that morning was located, at least not in either of the two witness statements he made to police, one dated 7 August 1985, the other dated 8 August 1985, but if I have missed it, apologies would be in order! I also do not believe that Jeremy was asked during his police interviews where his phones were kept at his cottage, and as far as I can recollect Jeremy didn't offer this information to them? That's my recollection of the location of the phones at Jeremy's cottage, and why I asked him whereabouts these phones were? I am sure Jeremy told me the phone he answered was on his bedside cabinet, but he could have been referring to his answer phone machine - I think he mentions something regarding these matters in one of the hundreds of letters I used to get from him, I will keep me eye out for mention of it when I have a peep into the files in my possession...
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 10, 2018, 04:28:PM
You can choose the amount of rings before an answering machine starts. Suspect this will always be between 3-8 rings. If it is much more, the caller would have hung up before the answering machine starts.

This gives Bamber between 5-10 seconds.

Bamber's own evidence that he 'slept like a log', waa 'awoken' by the call & the phone was downstairs 'in the kitchen' makes it impossible he answered the phone within 5-10 seconds.

From what I can recall. There were no rings at all. When I was a kid my parents would turn the answer machine on when ever we left the house then off when we got back. The answer machine would take the call imediatley and record the message. I now remember thinking back you would call people and get the answer message as soon as the connection was made. Answer machines were important until mobile phones and internet went mainstream. Because your house number was all you had and people often went out like always.



Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 10, 2018, 04:43:PM
Hopefully Mike or the CT can explain how Bamber got to the phone before the answering machine came on & Nevill could leave his message on it.


I think there is a misunderstanding here. If the police were looking at JBs answer machine audio tapes for "Nevills Call" that means they are looking for a short blank audio message. In order to try and explain any electronic proof of a call made from WHF to JB.


Anyway until Mike uploads any documented evidence of the police doing there is not much point talking about it.

 
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 04:52:PM
I must admit I was more interested in the answer machine and the possibility that there could be some evidence contained on one of the five audio tapes, which the police had seized from his cottage in September 1985...

If Jeremy I've been at the Farmhouse and had made the call to himself, that is to his Cottage, the answer phone would have been activated had it been switched on. There would in those circumstances have been an audio recording of the phone call. Unless, of course, had Jeremy been the Killer, and he had intended to rely upon the last number dial facility on the digital phone which was normally plugged in at the kitchen socket! The only other alternative, would be was that with Jeremy at the Farmhouse making the call to his own Cottage at Goldhanger, there was someone else back at his Cottage who lifted the receiver of the telephone there off its cradle as if to answer the call. But, it would have been far easier for him had he been the killer, simply to unplug his home phone and switch off his answer machine before returning to the farmhouse to kill everybody, and leave the digital statesman phone that was normally plugged in at the kitchen socket back at White house farm (with its last number dialled facility), and he simply dial his own number and leave the handset off its cradle!

But...

The round finger dial telephone appears to have been plugged in at the kitchen socket, and I can't see any possibility of Jeremy simply dialling his own house number using that phone, either with his phone and answer machine disconnected, or not because with the round finger dial phone having no last number dialled facility it would have been of no use to him! And, besides Jeremy would then need to get back to his cottage, get cleaned up and make his unanswered call back to the farmhouse, but in order for him to do this he would have needed to tap the cradle and get a dialing tone on the kitchen phone at the scene, so that by the time he returned to his cottage, he could try to ring whf back only to get a constant engaged tone!

But, surely that would have been pushing his luck too far, don't you think?

Yes, Jeremy could then go through his script and try to contact the police at Witham and if there had been someone there, he could have told them his prepared script and sent them scurrying to white house farm, but as luck would have it Witham police station was unmanned when he tried to contact them because PS Bews, PS Saxby and PC Myalls we're currently engaged in other duties away from the police station at that time, so Jeremy phoned Julie and she told him to go back to bed, and after which Jeremy spent five minutes or so, looking up the telephone number to Chelmsford police station, and he spoke to PC West at 3.36am...

But...

Remember, there was Neville Bambers call to the police at 3.26am...
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 05:05:PM
But...

Remember, there was Neville Bambers call to the police at 3.26am...

Someone would need to still be present at the scene to speak the words attributed to Neville Bamber from 3.26am, onward - how long did that call last? Close examination of that phone log record does not make any mention that the call had been cut off, there is only an addendum message added later on, to the effect that the son of Mr Bamber had telephoned the police etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah, and that the line or the phone had gone dead. So, this throws up another spanner in the works, was the call made by Neville Bamber to police at 3.26am, terminated, or not?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 05:11:PM
In Jeremy's own call to police timed at 3.36am, he makes specific reference in what he told PC West, that the line had simply gone dead - yet, in the earlier call made to police 10 minutes earlier, there is no mention in the main body of the 3.26am log, that Neville Bambers call to police at that time, had suddenly got cut off, or that it simply went dead - as I say, there is the addendum message which was added later on, once Jeremy himself had spoken to PC West, which gives Jeremy's version of the events, in the phone log of Neville Bambers!
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 05:16:PM
In Jeremy's own call to police timed at 3.36am, he makes specific reference in what he told PC West, that the line had simply gone dead - yet, in the earlier call made to police 10 minutes earlier, there is no mention in the main body of the 3.26am log, that Neville Bambers call to police at that time, had suddenly got cut off, or that it simply went dead - as I say, there is the addendum message which was added later on, once Jeremy himself had spoken to PC West, which gives Jeremy's version of the events, in the phone log of Neville Bambers!

There are therefore, two distinctive parts to the 3.26am phone log which I choose to refer to as Neville Bambers log, whereas, only one main part to the 3.36am phone log which I choose to refer to as Jeremy Bambers phone log! In the 3.26am log, it is made up of two parts, the intereaction of Neville Bamber with the police, and (b) Jeremy Bambers interaction with PC West..

Whereas, in the 3.36am log, you can see that everything recorded therein, comes from Jeremy Bamber alone, concerning what potentially was and had been happening back at the farmhouse!
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 05:22:PM
But, hang fire, that is not all because if Jeremy Bamber is the killer, he was far more cleverer than Essex police and a Home Secretary of the day gave him credit for - remember the front page headlines, ' HOW DID HE FOOL YOU'? was the rage of the day!
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 05:27:PM
But, hang fire, that is not all because if Jeremy Bamber is the killer, he was far more cleverer than Essex police and a Home Secretary of the day gave him credit for - remember the front page headlines, ' HOW DID HE FOOL YOU'? was the rage of the day!

Well, all I can say is, exactly how Jeremy Bamber managed to influence the state of the telephones inside the farmhouse at different times whilst he was outside in the company of the police beggars belief! Let's take the '999' call that was made requesting ambulances? How on earth could anybody for one moment believe that Jeremy was so clever that he concocted that scenario from outside the farmhouse?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 05:29:PM
Well, all I can say is, exactly how Jeremy Bamber managed to influence the state of the telephones inside the farmhouse at different times whilst he was outside in the company of the police beggars belief! Let's take the '999' call that was made requesting ambulances? How on earth could anybody for one moment believe that Jeremy was so clever that he concocted that scenario from outside the farmhouse?

Why hasn't any information been released in over 33 years as to when and whom requested the ambulances to attend the scene? It's withheld evidence under pii..
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 05:34:PM
The state of the telephone line at white house farm became altered at 5.55am from it being simply off the hook, to being engaged. At 6.09am the operator patched the '999' call from the farmhouse to the control room, where it remained under constant monitoring right up until 8.15am, at which stage it was discontinued because DCI Harris had to use one of the farmhouse landline telephones to update the Assistant Chief Constable of the events which had unfolded by that stage?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 06:04:PM
In order to try and demonstrate that I do take everything into account, I even looked at and considered the possibility, that Jeremy Bamber might very well have been responsible for the change in the status of the line to and from the farmhouse at 5.55am, and that it was he who had made the '999' call requesting the ambulances to attend the incident unfolding at the farmhouse, which I will touch upon briefly - in due course!

In the meantime, does anyone have the slightest idea how he could have and would have gone about achieving the impossible?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 10, 2018, 06:06:PM
Which phone was down stairs?

His house phone, or his answer phone?

Please direct me to the source of evidence where you got this information from, because it's news to me, and if Iv'e missed something as fundamental a fact as this I want my head chopping off..

https://soundcloud.com/phil-garlic/tracks

Here is the link that says his only phone was his kitchen phone. The answer phone will be attached to the phone.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 10, 2018, 06:10:PM
From what I can recall. There were no rings at all. When I was a kid my parents would turn the answer machine on when ever we left the house then off when we got back. The answer machine would take the call imediatley and record the message. I now remember thinking back you would call people and get the answer message as soon as the connection was made. Answer machines were important until mobile phones and internet went mainstream. Because your house number was all you had and people often went out like always.

That is a possibility. Which would mean Bamber would not wake as the phone would not ring.

People would set the answering machine to 3-8 rings. Which gives them the chance of answering it when at home, should they choose to do so.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 10, 2018, 06:13:PM

I think there is a misunderstanding here. If the police were looking at JBs answer machine audio tapes for "Nevills Call" that means they are looking for a short blank audio message. In order to try and explain any electronic proof of a call made from WHF to JB.


Anyway until Mike uploads any documented evidence of the police doing there is not much point talking about it.

Why would the police be looking for a call from Nevill ? He spoke to Bamber.

The answer machine is important because Bamber could not answer the phone within 5-10 seconds.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 06:30:PM
https://soundcloud.com/phil-garlic/tracks

Here is the link that says his only phone was his kitchen phone. The answer phone will be attached to the phone.

Thanks, Adam I note this is an audio recording made a long time after he spoke to me about it, when he has obviously had time to reflect and present his script in the best possible light for himself! I would just like to say that in the audio recording he makes no mention of his answer machine which Essex police confiscated from his cottage! Many answer machines did not have handsets, so there's no guarantee that his kitchen phone was connected to it. You could just as easily position or place an answer phone anywhere around the house, or as in this case, a cottage. All you'd need would be an adaptor and an extension cable. My recollection from my discussions with Jeremy was that the answer machine which police confiscated was on his bedside cabinet. I will keep an eye out for any documents I have dealing with this issue...

Thanks for the link!
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 10, 2018, 06:47:PM
Why would the police be looking for a call from Nevill ? He spoke to Bamber.

The answer machine is important because Bamber could not answer the phone within 5-10 seconds.

No its not important. You say "He spoke to Bamber" therefore his answer machine was off. If his answer machine was on (assuming he had one). Neville would have got straight through to the answer machine. Now whether Nevill would bother leaving a message in that situation who knows but it sure would have helped.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 10, 2018, 06:56:PM
No its not important. You say "He spoke to Bamber" therefore his answer machine was off. If his answer machine was on (assuming he had one). Neville would have got straight through to the answer machine. Now whether Nevill would bother leaving a message in that situation who knows but it sure would have helped.

I have already provided a source that Bamber had an answering machine. It would be on 24/7.

So Bamber only had 5-10 seconds to answer Nevill's call. Or no seconds if the phone went straight to answer machine, as you suggested. 

It would have taken him several minutes to wake, realise the phone was ringing, decide to answer it & go downstairs.

So no call was made by Nevill.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 10, 2018, 07:43:PM
I have already provided a source that Bamber had an answering machine. It would be on 24/7.

So Bamber only had 5-10 seconds to answer Nevill's call. Or no seconds if the phone went straight to answer machine, as you suggested. 

It would have taken him several minutes to wake, realise the phone was ringing, decide to answer it & go downstairs.

So no call was made by Nevill.

No you are assuming he would have a timed delayed answering machine on 24/7 way back in 1985. To make an argument fit.

 
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 10, 2018, 07:47:PM
Thanks, Adam I note this is an audio recording made a long time after he spoke to me about it, when he has obviously had time to reflect and present his script in the best possible light for himself! I would just like to say that in the audio recording he makes no mention of his answer machine which Essex police confiscated from his cottage! Many answer machines did not have handsets, so there's no guarantee that his kitchen phone was connected to it. You could just as easily position or place an answer phone anywhere around the house, or as in this case, a cottage. All you'd need would be an adaptor and an extension cable. My recollection from my discussions with Jeremy was that the answer machine which police confiscated was on his bedside cabinet. I will keep an eye out for any documents I have dealing with this issue...

Thanks for the link!


Do we know what make model of phone and answering machine he had?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 10, 2018, 07:55:PM
No you are assuming he would have a timed delayed answering machine on 24/7 way back in 1985. To make an argument fit.

What an earth is that ? 

Bamber's answering machine would be on 24/7. 

Which means Nevill either left a message while Bamber slept upstairs. Or Nevill didn't call.


Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 08:24:PM

Do we know what make model of phone and answering machine he had?

Yes, I have the details in one of the police logs which deals with all the exhibits in the three investigations, (1) the drug operation, (2) four murders and a suicide, and (3) five murders, I will try and locate the information overnight, I won't be sleeping to night much in any event..
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 08:33:PM
I have already provided a source that Bamber had an answering machine. It would be on 24/7. we don't know that Jeremy's answer machine was switched on 24/7

So Bamber only had 5-10 seconds to answer Nevill's call. Nobody can say how many seconds had passed before Jeremy woke up and answered the call, he could have awoken on the first ring and answered the phone quickly!Or no seconds if the phone went straight to answer machine, as you suggested.  my understanding from Jeremy was that he could answer a call through his answer machine, but that he could not dial out from it. I need to find his letters where he mentions something in them about his answer machine on his bedside cabinet and the five audio tapes the cops seized...

It would have taken him several minutes to wake, realise the phone was ringing, decide to answer it & go downstairs. I don't necessarily agree with that, he could have awoken on the first ring and been out of bed and answering the phone in seconds, we will never know

So no call was made by Nevill. I disagree, I believe Neville did make the call to Jeremy, and I believe that Neville then went on to make his 3.26am call to the police as per the 3.26am phone log. There had to be a call from the scene to Jeremy's cottage no matter on who's side anybody is on, or what corner anyone is fighting on behalf of - without a call from white house farm to Jeremy's cottage, there was either
no attack upon Neville Bamber which cost him  his life after he had been using the telephone, or if Jeremy was the killer he must have been a complete fool to make up a story about receiving a call from his father if his father hadn't made such a call! At the very least I feel we can all be reassured in the knowledge that there must have been a call from A to B, whether Neville made that call, or the call was made by someone else purporting to be him, is another matter!


There either had to be someone back at Jeremy's cottage, (Jeremy himself, or some other person), to answer the call from white house farm, or the answer machine and the phone were unplugged and switched off and the person phoning from the Farmhouse was using the digital Statesman telephone with its last number dialled recall facility...

I can't believe that if Jeremy had been the killer, that he had phoned his own Cottage using the round finger dial phone which didn't have a last number dialled facility and which was normally plugged in upstairs in the main bedroom so to speak! Why would Jeremy unplug the statesman digital phone which was normally plugged in at the kitchen socket that would have helped to provide him with an alibi, and in its place, bring the round finger dial phone, downstairs after unplugging it, in at the kitchen socket? Surely he would have realised that the police would pick up on the fact that somebody had unplugged two different phones in two different parts of the house, hid one, and plugged the second one in at the socket where the first phone was normally plugged in, an activity which does nothing to advance Jeremy's alibi?

No, not only would June know which telephone she used that evening at about 10.00pm when she spoke with her sister Pamela Boutflour, and whether or not it was the statesman telephone she had used on that occasion, but when she went upstairs to bed she would surely have noticed if the round finger dial phone which was normally plugged in at the bedroom socket was missing or not? Similarly, at around 9.30pm when the farm secretary spoke to Neville Bamber on the telephone, he too would have known whether or not he used the statesman telephone in the kitchen, or the round finger dial phone in the bedroom, or the kitchen..

I can't see how Jeremy could have manipulated any of the telephones inside the farmhouse, and set them up with the handset of the round finger dial phone off its cradle plugged in at the kitchen socket because that doesn't help Jeremy with his alibi, it's as though if Jeremy is the killer, he wouldn't want to be able to prove that he received a call from his father, when all along that was the very reason why Jeremy tried to telephone Witham police station, and subsequently spoke to PC West at Chelmsford police station...
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 10, 2018, 08:46:PM
What an earth is that ?

Bamber's answering machine would be on 24/7.

Which means Nevill either left a message while Bamber slept upstairs. Or Nevill didn't call.


The evidence pointing to Sheila's culpability is in itself evidence that JB either picked up the phone in time or had the answering machine off one way or the other.

The evidence of Sheila's culpability is challenged only by hypothetical arguments that have little credulity. Assuming JB would have his answer machine on and then assume he wont wake in time does not in anyway turn the hypothesis into a factual event. It does not even increase the likleyhood of the hypothesis being true. That can only be done by facts and not assumptions.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Caroline on October 10, 2018, 08:48:PM

The evidence pointing to Sheila's culpability is in itself evidence that JB either picked up the phone in time or had the answering machine off one way or the other.

The evidence of Sheila's culpability is challenged only by hypothetical arguments that have little credulity. Assuming JB would have his answer machine on and then assume he wont wake in time does not in anyway turn the hypothesis into a factual event. It does not even increase the likleyhood of the hypothesis being true. That can only be done by facts and not assumptions.

What evidence?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 10, 2018, 08:58:PM

The evidence pointing to Sheila's culpability is in itself evidence that JB either picked up the phone in time or had the answering machine off one way or the other.

The evidence of Sheila's culpability is challenged only by hypothetical arguments that have little credulity. Assuming JB would have his answer machine on and then assume he wont wake in time does not in anyway turn the hypothesis into a factual event. It does not even increase the likleyhood of the hypothesis being true. That can only be done by facts and not assumptions.

Of course he wouldn't be 'awoken' from 'sleeping like a log', decide to answer the phone & go to the 'kitchen', within 5-10 seconds.

Of course he left his answering machine on 24/7. Everyone always has. There is no reason to turn it off.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: maggie on October 10, 2018, 09:09:PM
Of course he wouldn't be 'awoken' from 'sleeping like a log', decide to answer the phone & go to the 'kitchen', within 5-10 seconds.

Of course he left his answering machine on 24/7. Everyone always has. There is no reason to turn it off.
'everyone' always hasn't!  We switched our answer phones on and off in the 80s.  On when out, on if unable to answer phone when in, otherwiise usually off
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 09:14:PM
Of course he wouldn't be 'awoken' from 'sleeping like a log', decide to answer the phone & go to the 'kitchen', within 5-10 seconds.

Of course he left his answering machine on 24/7. Everyone always has. There is no reason to turn it off.

The fact that Jeremy (let's say) did have his answer phone on 24/7, or as the case may be, at the time that Neville Bamber decided to call him, and the fact that the police found no evidence that there had been a recording of such a call on those audio tapes belonging to the answer machine, it must surely only mean if there had been such a call, that Jeremy in fact had responded to Neville's call before the automatic recording of his answer machine kicked in, otherwise, there would have been found some audio evidence in one form or another on the five tapes which the cops took along with his machine. As far as I know they didn't"t take Jeremy's telephone as well..
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 10, 2018, 09:19:PM
'everyone' always hasn't!  We switched our answer phones on and off in the 80s.  On when out, on if unable to answer phone when in, otherwiise usually off

Of course no one turns an answering machine off & on. They are just as useful when people are at home.

You know Nevill would not ring to leave a message. And even if he did, know Bamber would not wake prior to an answering machine being switched on.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 10, 2018, 09:20:PM
Mike has already said Bamber left his answering machine phone on 24/7.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 09:32:PM
Right, since no-one taken me up on the challenge I set earlier in this thread, concerning the possibility that Jeremy could have been involved in the changing state of the farmhouse telephone line at around 5.55am, at which stage the phone had been in an off the hook state of play, but the line had mysteriously become engaged at around 5.55pm and that it might have been he (Jeremy)who was responsible for causing this / that as well as it being he who had dialled '999' to summons ambulances to the incident!

I'm not suggesting that he did, but at around 5.30am, a police officer took Jeremy to a nearby village pay phone box so that he could phone his girlfriend. Well it remains a possibility that one or two things happenned at the time he talked to Julie Mugford' and she to him! Either after talking to Julie, Jeremy had phoned white house farm from the phone box which to him resulted in a constant engaged tone which could have been picked up by the operator because of a drop in the voltage or an increase in voltage, which may have been followed up on by Jeremy dialling '999' requesting ambulances. It might have been the sudden change in the state of the line at white house farm, from originally being in a state 'off the hook', into 'an engaged tone', which caused the operator to patch the line to and from white house farm through to the control room at Chelmsford police station, without anyone inside the farmhouse touching or using any of the telephones...

I'm just saying that's all..
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 10, 2018, 09:38:PM

I'm just saying that's all..

Another alternative cause could have involved someone who was still alive inside the farmhouse, unplugging the two phones (one in kitchen, one in bedroom), and plugging the one which had been unplugged upstairs in the bedroom into the kitchen socket downstairs, whilst discarding the Statesman digital phone in the kitchen - the state of the line could have become altered in these circumstances..
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Caroline on October 10, 2018, 09:44:PM
Right, since no-one taken me up on the challenge I set earlier in this thread, concerning the possibility that Jeremy could have been involved in the changing state of the farmhouse telephone line at around 5.55am, at which stage the phone had been in an off the hook state of play, but the line had mysteriously become engaged at around 5.55pm and that it might have been he (Jeremy)who was responsible for causing this / that as well as it being he who had dialled '999' to summons ambulances to the incident!

I'm not suggesting that he did, but at around 5.30am, a police officer took Jeremy to a nearby village pay phone box so that he could phone his girlfriend. Well it remains a possibility that one or two things happenned at the time he talked to Julie Mugford' and she to him! Either after talking to Julie, Jeremy had phoned white house farm from the phone box which to him resulted in a constant engaged tone which could have been picked up by the operator because of a drop in the voltage or an increase in voltage, which may have been followed up on by Jeremy dialling '999' requesting ambulances. It might have been the sudden change in the state of the line at white house farm, from originally being in a state 'off the hook', into 'an engaged tone', which caused the operator to patch the line to and from white house farm through to the control room at Chelmsford police station, without anyone inside the farmhouse touching or using any of the telephones...

I'm just saying that's all..

The tones for engaged and off the hook were the same.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Caroline on October 10, 2018, 09:50:PM
The tones for engaged and off the hook were the same.

archives archives@bt.com
To   
Caroline,

In 1985 Maldon exchange was still an electro-mechanical exchange (Strowger). With this type of exchange a caller would receive engaged tone if the telephone was on a call or just off hook.


Regards,
XXXX XXXXXX
BSc MIET
BT Archives
Technology heritage manager
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 10, 2018, 11:25:PM
What evidence?


Seriosly? Every time you have to make something fit its because of evidence showing Sheila was the shooter.

The scene of crime and all the details around it is evidence and always will be. Insisting that the Jeremy made it all look that way in a hypothetical scenario does not nullify the scene for what it is.

Why do you think RWB came up with the idea that Jeremy gave Sheila the gun and told her to shoot herself? Why did Bernard Knight said it would be extrodinary to stage a suicide like this without the victim objecting? Because the evidence shows she shot herself. The evidence is so great even guilters resort to a senario where Sheila is a willing participant in staging her own death as suicicde but under orders from Jeremy. These stupid theories are a result of the evidence of Sheila's involment.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Caroline on October 11, 2018, 01:06:AM

Seriosly? Every time you have to make something fit its because of evidence showing Sheila was the shooter.

The scene of crime and all the details around it is evidence and always will be. Insisting that the Jeremy made it all look that way in a hypothetical scenario does not nullify the scene for what it is.

Why do you think RWB came up with the idea that Jeremy gave Sheila the gun and told her to shoot herself? Why did Bernard Knight said it would be extrodinary to stage a suicide like this without the victim objecting? Because the evidence shows she shot herself. The evidence is so great even guilters resort to a senario where Sheila is a willing participant in staging her own death as suicicde but under orders from Jeremy. These stupid theories are a result of the evidence of Sheila's involment.

I'll ask again - what evidence?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 11, 2018, 02:04:AM
I'll ask again - what evidence?


And I will tell you again. The scene of the crime and the circumstances of the bodies at the scene.


 
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 11, 2018, 02:32:AM
Mike has already said Bamber left his answering machine phone on 24/7.


The same Mike that already said Jeremy had this answer machine by his bed?  ::)


Mikes word often proves to be a double edged sword for many peoples theory's and arguments such as this instance. Hence people seldom use Mike as source of info.  :-\
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 11, 2018, 06:26:AM

The same Mike that already said Jeremy had this answer machine by his bed?  ::)


Mikes word often proves to be a double edged sword for many peoples theory's and arguments such as this instance. Hence people seldom use Mike as source of info.  :-\

Do you not think an answering machine is still useful when someone is at home ? People do -

Sleep
Shower
Entertain.
Vaccum
Play loud music
Watch TV
Not want to speak to anyone.
Cook.
Use a sun bed.

Having an answering machine on 3-8 rings gives people at home the chance of answering a call,  ignoring it & letting someone leave a message or letting a message be left if they have not heard the phone.

But appreciate supporters have to say Bamber was the only person in the country who switched his answering machine off. Otherwise the call from Nevill 100% did not happen.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 11, 2018, 07:21:AM
The CT will never bring up Bamber's answering machine, as it is reactive & defensive evidence.

Nevill's call to the police & Sheila being alive in the kitchen is pro active & positive evidence. Saying 'this shows Bamber is innocent'. Rather than fire fighting.

Besides which, no one will believe Bamber switched off his answering machine so better to pretend it didn't exist.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Adam on October 11, 2018, 08:02:AM
Replacing answering machines in many households was BT's 1571 service.

This was a 24/7 service which could not be switched off & on, as no one used to switch their answering machines off/on.

Customers had to cancel with BT if they did not want it.

Bamber is lucky he did not have this service. He & supporters can at least claim he switched off his manual answering machine, to keep the dream alive.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 11, 2018, 08:31:AM
The tones for engaged and off the hook were the same.

But not to the operator who can eavesdrop a telephone handset which is 'off its cradle', whereas ordinary consumer individuals can't and couldn't! As I say the operator could tell the difference - it's possible that prior to around 5.55am that everytime the operator checked the line the phones handset at the scene was off its cradle (off the hook), and that no-one was trying to make any calls to the farmhouse and no-one at the house was talking to anyone on the line at the times of the operators check. This was when the operator could say with certainty that the phone at white house farm was 'off the hook'. The information I have been given by bt engineers is that with the telephones handset thus arranged, anyone other than the operator attempting to make contact with the occupants inside the farmhouse would be greeted by a continuous 'engaged tone'. Furthermore, I was assured that in the following circumstances, even when a telephone handset is let's say 'off the hook' at ground zero where neither anyone is already trying to make contact with the occupants of the premises, and the operator is not checking the current status of the phone line at the scene, but that when the following occurs, the operator is or was unable to tell whether the phone at the scene is simply 'off the hook', when prior to the operators check a third party has tried to contact the people inside the premises by telephone - this activity prevented the operator from being able to tell whether the handset in question was 'off the hook', because the line to the property is being overloaded at the local exchange by the third parties attempted call the house...

At this time the following is / was true:-

(1) - The handset at whf is "off the hook'

(2) - Anyone trying to call whf at this time gets an engaged tone

(3) - Except the Operator who has the facilities at his/her disposal to be able to check the line to see if someone is actually talking to someone, or if the handset being checked is simply 'off the hook'

(4) - If someone is trying to call the house with conditions (1) and (2) in play the operator will be unable to tell whether or not the phone still has its handset 'off the hook' at (3) because the phone line at the local exchange (substation) has become overloaded, resulting in the operator only being able to get an engaged tone equivalent to the conditions met at (2)

(5) - when the conditions at (4) are met, the operator could be mistaken into believing that Someone at the farmhouse is / was talking to a third party on the line because at that time the operator gets a constant 'engaged tone'


Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 11, 2018, 08:44:AM
I won't let the answer phone issue be forgotten - the police thought it was capable of settling the matter of Neville Bamber having made that call to Jeremy or not!

And..

What's more, just because the police have not disclosed the evidence they found when examining those five audio tapes belonging to Jeremy's answer phone machine does not necessarily mean that the actual call to Jeremy by Neville Bamber  was not recorded therein, because the report concerning these examinations has never been disclosed and is withheld under pii..

So, it would be futile for anyone to proceed on the footing that no such call was made, or had been made...

For all anyone knows, the call from Neville could have been recorded on the answer phone audio tapes taken from Jeremy's cottage!

If so, 'THEN WHAT'?
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Caroline on October 11, 2018, 12:27:PM

And I will tell you again. The scene of the crime and the circumstances of the bodies at the scene.

So, just your own theories then. Thought so.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Caroline on October 11, 2018, 12:30:PM
But not to the operator who can eavesdrop a telephone handset which is 'off its cradle', whereas ordinary consumer individuals can't and couldn't! As I say the operator could tell the difference - it's possible that prior to around 5.55am that everytime the operator checked the line the phones handset at the scene was off its cradle (off the hook), and that no-one was trying to make any calls to the farmhouse and no-one at the house was talking to anyone on the line at the times of the operators check. This was when the operator could say with certainty that the phone at white house farm was 'off the hook'. The information I have been given by bt engineers is that with the telephones handset thus arranged, anyone other than the operator attempting to make contact with the occupants inside the farmhouse would be greeted by a continuous 'engaged tone'. Furthermore, I was assured that in the following circumstances, even when a telephone handset is let's say 'off the hook' at ground zero where neither anyone is already trying to make contact with the occupants of the premises, and the operator is not checking the current status of the phone line at the scene, but that when the following occurs, the operator is or was unable to tell whether the phone at the scene is simply 'off the hook', when prior to the operators check a third party has tried to contact the people inside the premises by telephone - this activity prevented the operator from being able to tell whether the handset in question was 'off the hook', because the line to the property is being overloaded at the local exchange by the third parties attempted call the house...

At this time the following is / was true:-

(1) - The handset at whf is "off the hook'

(2) - Anyone trying to call whf at this time gets an engaged tone

(3) - Except the Operator who has the facilities at his/her disposal to be able to check the line to see if someone is actually talking to someone, or if the handset being checked is simply 'off the hook'

(4) - If someone is trying to call the house with conditions (1) and (2) in play the operator will be unable to tell whether or not the phone still has its handset 'off the hook' at (3) because the phone line at the local exchange (substation) has become overloaded, resulting in the operator only being able to get an engaged tone equivalent to the conditions met at (2)

(5) - when the conditions at (4) are met, the operator could be mistaken into believing that Someone at the farmhouse is / was talking to a third party on the line because at that time the operator gets a constant 'engaged tone'

The operator didn't distinguish the phone state by the tone (which were the same). They were able to break into the line and determine if there was a conversation going on or not - therefore able to determine if the phone was engaged (a conversation taking place) or just off the hook (no conversation taking place). It had nothing to do with the tone.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: David1819 on October 11, 2018, 04:24:PM
So, just your own theories then. Thought so.


WHF being occupied by four bodys shot excessively along with the body of a mentally ill woman holding a gun with two contact wounds under her chin is no theory.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: maggie on October 11, 2018, 04:51:PM
Replacing answering machines in many households was BT's 1571 service.

This was a 24/7 service which could not be switched off & on, as no one used to switch their answering machines off/on.

Customers had to cancel with BT if they did not want it.

Bamber is lucky he did not have this service. He & supporters can at least claim he switched off his manual answering machine, to keep the dream alive.
FACT Adam..Nothing to do with keeping any 'dream alive' it is simply the way it was.
1571 was not introduced until the 1990s anyway.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 11, 2018, 05:07:PM
The operator didn't distinguish the phone state by the tone (which were the same). They were able to break into the line and determine if there was a conversation going on or not - therefore able to determine if the phone was engaged (a conversation taking place) or just off the hook (no conversation taking place). sorry but you have got it wrong. I had it explained to me by two bt engineers, the operator could (back in August 1985) eavesdrop a phone off the hook which was producing a constant engaged tone when the line was being checked by the operator, but that when a third party was trying to ring the same number, and at the same time the operator was doing a check the operator would not be able to eavesdrop the 'phone off the hook', or be able to speak to the third party because of an overload created at the exchange substation. The operator would only be able to either eavesdrop the phone that was off the hook when the third party discontinued their attempt to make a call to the phone off its hook, or in the case of somebody replacing the phone off the hook into its cradle, only then would the operator have been able to break into the caller's line and either eavesdrop them, or speak to them! Back in August 1985, operators were restricted on what they could or could not do! I found all this out whilst looking into the possibility of obtaining itemised call billing in connection with the phone lines at whf? They didn't have itemised billing back then in the area where whf was situated, but I found out that it was possible to break the duration of all calls which had been calculated at the local substation using a metering system, that could be analysed in such away by specially trained bt engineers, to calculate the length of all the individual calls in that metering system, but not the date and time of such calls! This technology was available to bt and the police at the time of the tragedy, and was the forerunner to the itemised billing technology that we enjoy today! The substation involved back in August 1985 was out dated, and would soon be replaced with and by a modern exchange.. It had nothing to do with the tone. it did, but it mattered regarding different permutations, as I have described - the operator could not eavesdrop a line when it was overloaded back at the local substation involving a phone off the hook at one location, and somebody trying to ring that telephone, from another location and getting the engaged tone, the operator would get an engaged tone, but would have to wait until one or other party, either replaced the off the hook phone onto its cradle, or the caller discontinued their call, and only then would the operator have been able to eavesdrop the remaining phone line in use...
[/i]
[/list]
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 11, 2018, 05:23:PM
Since it was possible for a specialist bt engineer to have examined the metering system back in the local substation which dealt with calls to and from white house farm, and because Essex police seized Jeremy's answer phone and five audio tapes for the purpose of determining whether there had been a call from white house farm to Jeremy's cottage, it must also follow, that by adopting the same technical analysis to the telephone metering associated with the phone line at white house farm toJeremy's cottage, it stands to reason that Essex police must have and did get confirmation one way or another, that there were two calls, one identifiable from the metering records associated with white house farm, and the other associated with the line at Jeremy's cottage, where one was an outgoing call, and the other an incoming call, both of identical length! Furthermore, that insofar as the metering system associated with Jeremy's cottage at Head Street, Goldhanger, the breakdown of the individual calls he had made to Julie Mugford', and then to PC West at Chelmsford police station would have been available to Essex police, if they had needed to go that / this far!

Anyway, you can believe what you want, I know what I was told, and there was no reason for either of these two bt engineers to tell me lies about it!
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: mike tesko on October 11, 2018, 05:41:PM
It was from one of these two bt engineers that I was told of a possible reason why the call from Neville to Jeremy had suddenly gone dead, as if cut off - apparently the round finger type telephone which was photographed in the kitchen at white house farm, had a common fault in that sometimes the two plungers on the base of the phone sometimes / often got stuck in the down position, and when this occurred the lines would neither give a dialling tone, or an engaged tone, it would effectively have been as Jeremy described the state of the connection during Neville Bambers call! Of course I checked the crime scene photographs to see whether or not the two plungers on the round finger dial phone were stuck in the down position or not, but they weren't. So I asked the BT engineers when I next got to see them, was there another way that the phone line could have gone dead in the manner with which Jeremy had described, and I was told there were a number of different things that could produce that result, but that the most likeliest reason was probably because somebody had depressed one or other, or both plungers and had held them in the downward position momentarily before releasing them! When released the caller would get a new dialling tone even if the recipient (Jeremy) was still holding the handset of his own phone!
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Caroline on October 11, 2018, 05:49:PM

WHF being occupied by four bodys shot excessively along with the body of a mentally ill woman holding a gun with two contact wounds under her chin is no theory.

No, it's a staged crime scene.
Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
Post by: Caroline on October 11, 2018, 05:51:PM

    I also had it explained by a BT engineer and from BT archives. They wouldn't have needed an operator to break into the call if a tone distinguished off the hook from engaged.
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Jane on October 11, 2018, 05:52:PM
    Since it was possible for a specialist bt engineer to have examined the metering system back in the local substation which dealt with calls to and from white house farm, and because Essex police seized Jeremy's answer phone and five audio tapes for the purpose of determining whether there had been a call from white house farm to Jeremy's cottage, it must also follow, that by adopting the same technical analysis to the telephone metering associated with the phone line at white house farm toJeremy's cottage, it stands to reason that Essex police must have and did get confirmation one way or another, that there were two calls, one identifiable from the metering records associated with white house farm, and the other associated with the line at Jeremy's cottage, where one was an outgoing call, and the other an incoming call, both of identical length! Furthermore, that insofar as the metering system associated with Jeremy's cottage at Head Street, Goldhanger, the breakdown of the individual calls he had made to Julie Mugford', and then to PC West at Chelmsford p

    lice station would have been available to Essex police, if they had needed to go that / this far!

    Anyway, you can believe what you want, I know what I was told, and there was no reason for either of these two bt engineers to tell me lies about it!

    Are you suggesting that a highly qualified engineer who worked in the area on the system in question, lied to Caroline. Perhaps you could also suggest what reason he'd have had for so doing?
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Adam on October 11, 2018, 06:20:PM
    FACT Adam..Nothing to do with keeping any 'dream alive' it is simply the way it was.
    1571 was not introduced until the 1990s anyway.

    What's the 90's got to do with it ? I said 24/7 1571 replaced 24/7 answering machines.

    Everyone knows people diidn't turn answering machines on/off. Only lights & heating would be turned on/off when entering/exiting a property.

    A phone, fridge, kettle, washing machine, dish washer, TV, stereo, video, sun bed & toaster would be permananly plugged in. On standby ready to be used regulary or always working (fridge).

    The answering machine would also be permanently plugged in & on. Ready to be used when the occupant is either out or in.

    People didn't walk around their property switching all these things off/on at the plug when arriving/exiting home. Espescially an answering machine which would still be often useful when the occupant is at home.

    This is the same as today although people with home phones will now have BT's 24/7 1571. Internet connection will also be permanently plugged in.
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: JackieD on October 11, 2018, 07:21:PM
    FACT Adam..Nothing to do with keeping any 'dream alive' it is simply the way it was.
    1571 was not introduced until the 1990s anyway.

    Absolutely Maggie
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Adam on October 11, 2018, 07:58:PM
    Absolutely Maggie

    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..... 
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 11, 2018, 08:31:PM
    I also had it explained by a BT engineer and from BT archives. They wouldn't have needed an operator to break into the call if a tone distinguished off the hook from engaged.

    You were misinformed, or you misunderstood what you were being told - since, back in the day, an operator could break into a line with its handset off the hook, or even when a live call was in progress between two parties, but in the circumstances involving one party having their handset off the hook, and the other party trying to ring their number, the basic equipment at the local (exchange) substation became 'overloaded' and prevented the operator from breaking into the off the hook line, or the caller's line, because the situation created an impasse in the electronic circuitry at the substation. The operator would have to wait until either one of two conditions was met before he / she could break into the line still in its active condition, i.e. the phone off the hook, or the caller still trying to contact the phone which was off the hook! I had the benefit of access to two bt engineers, one who is a personal friend of Jeremy's (Ian), and a retired BT engineer who was a specialist in the workings, analysis of the metering system in use at the substation (exchange) of concern...

    I was satisfied with the information I received at the time, and knew that behind the scenes, Essex police could have proved, or disprove the claim made by Jeremy that he had received a call from his father, when Jeremy had said he had, and did...

    Essex police had the means to put Jeremy's script to the sword, but they were unable to do so, despite having the technological know how to go about it!

    On top of this, Essex police had the drugs operation surveillance evidence gathered during the period when the shooting tragedy at white house farm unfolded - the drugs squad had low flying aircraft taking video footage in the vicinity of white house farm, and Jeremy Bambers Head Street, Goldhanger, cottage, on 6th August 1985, onward. They had telephone tapping evidence obtained under a warrant (telephone communications act), and were actually monitoring the phones at white house farm, Head Street, and Julie Mugford's residence, when the shootings were taking place, so there was actually no need for Essex police to have to unravel the metering at all the locations mentioned, because the drugs squad had all the evidence confirming this at their disposal, already!
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 11, 2018, 08:38:PM
    Everybody keeps saying that Jeremy was a small time drug dealer, but his activities suggested something far bigger, he was involved in national and international drug trafficking, along with Julie Mugford', Sheila, Freddie Emani, and contacts they had in Scotland, Amsterdam and Belgium...
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 11, 2018, 08:46:PM
    Everybody keeps saying that Jeremy was a small time drug dealer, but his activities suggested something far bigger, he was involved in national and international drug trafficking, along with Julie Mugford', Sheila, Freddie Emani, and contacts they had in Scotland, Amsterdam and Belgium...

    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!
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Caroline on October 11, 2018, 09:00:PM
    You were misinformed, or you misunderstood what you were being told - since, back in the day, an operator could break into a line with its handset off the hook, or even when a live call was in progress between two parties, but in the circumstances involving one party having their handset off the hook, and the other party trying to ring their number, the basic equipment at the local (exchange) substation became 'overloaded' and prevented the operator from breaking into the off the hook line, or the caller's line, because the situation created an impasse in the electronic circuitry at the substation. The operator would have to wait until either one of two conditions was met before he / she could break into the line still in its active condition, i.e. the phone off the hook, or the caller still trying to contact the phone which was off the hook! I had the benefit of access to two bt engineers, one who is a personal friend of Jeremy's (Ian), and a retired BT engineer who was a specialist in the workings, analysis of the metering system in use at the substation (exchange) of concern...

    I was satisfied with the information I received at the time, and knew that behind the scenes, Essex police could have proved, or disprove the claim made by Jeremy that he had received a call from his father, when Jeremy had said he had, and did...

    Essex police had the means to put Jeremy's script to the sword, but they were unable to do so, despite having the technological know how to go about it!

    On top of this, Essex police had the drugs operation surveillance evidence gathered during the period when the shooting tragedy at white house farm unfolded - the drugs squad had low flying aircraft taking video footage in the vicinity of white house farm, and Jeremy Bambers Head Street, Goldhanger, cottage, on 6th August 1985, onward. They had telephone tapping evidence obtained under a warrant (telephone communications act), and were actually monitoring the phones at white house farm, Head Street, and Julie Mugford's residence, when the shootings were taking place, so there was actually no need for Essex police to have to unravel the metering at all the locations mentioned, because the drugs squad had all the evidence confirming this at their disposal, already!

    No I wasn't - I actually tracked down an engineer who worked at the Maldon exchange (Geoff) - he didn't know Bamber and wasn't a personal friend. If anyone wants to get the information for themselves, they can email the BT Archives - which are also a good source. https://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/BTgrouparchives/index.htm

    Interesting that you're telling us Bamber knew a BT engineer though, so much for not understanding how the system worked. He certainly had a useful source of information to hand.

    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Steve_uk on October 11, 2018, 10:22: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!

    Will the evidence will be forthcoming for this or is this also held under PII?
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: David1819 on October 12, 2018, 12:16:AM
    No, it's a staged crime scene.

    Now that is a theory.
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Caroline on October 12, 2018, 01:42:AM
    Now that is a theory.

    Of course it is David, none of us were there so we take the best from the crime scene. No matter which side you support - it's theoretical.
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: David1819 on October 12, 2018, 04:09:AM
    Of course it is David, none of us were there so we take the best from the crime scene. No matter which side you support - it's theoretical.


    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.
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 12, 2018, 07:47:AM
    Will the evidence will be forthcoming for this or is this also held under PII?

    Mugford's name is in the Informants register held in London, as are the payments she received for the information she provided which was destined to result in the arrest and prosecution of Jeremy for drug related offences, but when the shooting tragedy at white house farm presented itself, Essex police settled for him being successfully prosecuted for the five murders! Unfortunately, I am not in control of what is or is not withheld under pii...

    But I do know about the existence of the Informants Register in London..
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko 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!



    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: maggie 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.
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Caroline 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/
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Jane 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?
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Adam 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 ?
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: David1819 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



    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Jane 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?
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Steve_uk 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.
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Caroline 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.



    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: JackieD 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
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Caroline 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!
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Jane 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.
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Caroline 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?
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Adam 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'.
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko 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)
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 11:19:AM
    Ian Manley, BT engineer, pictured here with Jeremy Bamber
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 11:27:AM

    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.

    Where a defendant admits his / her guilt to a solicitor or an advocate and decides to please not guilty the solicitor or advocate cannot and will not represent that defendant in any court proceedings!
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 11:30:AM

    Rather like the above then, Maggie, eh?

    Jeremy was under surveillance by the drugs squad at the time of the shootings, that surveillance included visual observations by the drugs squad, telephone tapping, and use of electronic devices which included a tracking device that cops fitted to Jeremy's astra motor vehicle!
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 11:34:AM

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

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

    Venezis did eventually attend white housefarm, when DS Jones vented his suspicions about Jeremy Bamber...
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 11:43:AM
    The only ways that anybody could override the negative / positive conditions which permitted or restricted access to an operator of a phone line, was when the telephone line was being constantly monitored under a telecommunications act warrant, or when a BT engineer was working on a junction box, and he was testing a particular line, or a number of telephone lines fed from and to a particular junction box the type that you tended to find located on pavements at roadside or in the street - all these junction boxes were linked to the nearest local exchange, which used metering to help in calculating individual phone bills where one unit of call time had a value, dependant upon day time, evening, week-end and international call rates!
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 12:16:PM
    Ian Manley told me that he knew a retired BT engineer who worked specifically on work and maintenance which needed to be carried out in local exchanges of the type used to calculate a customer's bills using the old metering system (the forerunner to itemised billings)! Through this introduction it soon became apparent that if necessary, the police / powers that be could break a customer's uses of each and every unit of call time, so that the length and duration of individual calls could be identified, that had been made, from (in particular), a customer's telephone line! It was possible to do this I was told because in the banks of technology at these old fashioned exchanges, a unit of a customer's call time was registered via the Meter, by measuring periods of voltages recorded whenever a customer made a day time call, an cheap rate evening call, a week-end call, or an international calls. Apparently differently detected and recorded voltages became stockpiled in the memory of the meters.as a result a trained engineer could pinpoint or identify the duration of all calls which had been made at a particular time of day, evening or week-end etc...

    Well. Of course was all very interesting to me, since here was an opportunity for the police to be able to prove, or to disprove that Neville Bamber had made that viral telephone call to Jeremy during the cheap rate period ( middle of the night on the 7 August 1985)?  And, as it now turns out a second call from Neville Bamber, from the farmhouse to the police at Chelmsford at 3.26am..

    We know that it was not possible to be able to find out the actual timing all these individual calls which could have been extracted at the local exchange if necessary could not give or provide a date when such a call, or a series of calls had actually been made, but this is where other factors might come into play - for example, the timing of police logs kept by Essex police...

    Now, to somebody like myself, I could this all very intriguing...

    Since, after discovering the existence of two police phone message logs, one timed at 3.26am, and another timed at 3.36am, I was interested in trying to discover the duration of the two logs in question, because I rather fancied the possibility of being able to discern one of these calls (in length) from the other, or and vice versa!
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 12:19:PM
    Quote from: mike tesko link=topic=9707.msg447737#msg447737

    Since, after discovering the existence of two police phone message logs, one timed at 3.26am, and another timed at 3.36am, I was interested in trying to discover the duration of the two logs in question, because I rather fancied the possibility of being able to discern one of these calls (in length) from the other, or and vice versa!
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 12:23:PM


    How, would somebody like me, go about determining the length of either of these two phone calls made to police, one timed as commencing from 3.26am, the other commencing at 3.36am, and determine the significance in both of these calls, in such a way that it must be accepted that both of these calls were not brought to life as part of some misunderstanding between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet? But rather, that one of these two calls had been made to police by Neville Bamber, whilst the latter one was made by Jeremy Bamber himself, 10 minutes later?
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 12:33:PM
    How, would somebody like me, go about determining the length of either of these two phone calls made to police, one timed as commencing from 3.26am, the other commencing at 3.36am, and determine the significance in both of these calls, in such a way that it must be accepted that both of these calls were not brought to life as part of some misunderstanding between PC West and Malcolm Bonnet? But rather, that one of these two calls had been made to police by Neville Bamber, whilst the latter one was made by Jeremy Bamber himself, 10 minutes later?

    Well, consider the following known about, and accepted facts...

    Jeremy complained about the length of time it was taking police to deal with his phone call to them, and that it took all of 9 minutes, for the police to eventually tell him that he should go straight to the farmhouse where he would be met by the police who had already been deployed to the incident!

    Well, Jeremy was still on the phone to PC West at the time the operator (OC West) spoke to the operator at 3.42am requesting that the line at white house farm be checked because when PC West had tried to ring it the line had been engaged, just like Jeremy Bamber had said it was after his cut short phone call from his father!

    So, what I decided to do was to lay out these known facts against the timings of the two specifically timed messages (3.26am and 3.36am, respectively)..
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 12:46:PM

    So, what I decided to do was to lay out these known facts against the timings of the two specifically timed messages (3.26am and 3.36am, respectively)..

    At the heart of this 'TEST' was the 3.42am time that PC West had contacted the operator to ask her to check the line at white house farm?

    1st phone Call - 3.26am, PC West call to operator at 3.42am (16 minutes)

    2nd phone call - 3.36am, PC West call to operator at 3.42am (6 minutes)
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 12:53:PM
    At the heart of this 'TEST' was the 3.42am time that PC West had contacted the operator to ask her to check the line at white house farm?

    1st phone Call - 3.26am, PC West call to operator at 3.42am (16 minutes)

    2nd phone call - 3.36am, PC West call to operator at 3.42am (6 minutes)

    Jeremy arrived at white house farm by 3.52am - it takes about 7 minutes to drive from his cottage(9 head Street, Goldhanger) to his parents farmhouse. He must have left' therefore no later than 3.45am to go to the farm from his cottage.. if he left sooner, he slow timed for whatever reason! If he left later, he must have been speeding part of the way (hence why he slowed his speed right down upon seeing a police car hurtling along behind him on the Tollsbury road. Maybe he thinking that the cops were to pull him over for speeding)!

    Now, if he left his cottage at around 3.45am, to go to his parents cottage, this gave him just enough time from that point onwards, to reach white house farm by 3.52am
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 12:59:PM
    Jeremy arrived at white house farm by 3.52am - it takes about 7 minutes to drive from his cottage(9 head Street, Goldhanger) to his parents farmhouse. He must have left' therefore no later than 3.45am to go to the farm from his cottage.. if he left sooner, he slow timed for whatever reason! If he left later, he must have been speeding part of the way (hence why he slowed his speed right down upon seeing a police car hurtling along behind him on the Tollsbury road. Maybe he thinking that the cops were to pull him over for speeding)!

    Now, if he left his cottage at around 3.45am, to go to his parents cottage, this gave him just enough time from that point onwards, to reach white house farm by 3.52am

    If you are one of those, who believe he deliberately took his time to get there to the farmhouse by 3.52am, then you must accept that Jeremy must have left much sooner than 3.45am..

    But, for people like yourselves, who subscribe to this view, you must accept that PC West did not contact the operator until 3.42am asking her to check the phone line at white house farm? Then he told Jeremy Bamber to go directly to the scene where he would be met by police officers who had been deployed there already (deployed to the scene at 3.35am)..
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 01:01:PM
    If Jeremy Bamber had made his own call to police at say 3.26am, rather than at 3.36am, he couldn't have left his cottage until some point after PC West asked the operator to check the phone line at white house farm ( this took place at 3.42am) - so, we have at best an additional 2 minutes (maximum) which to add to Jeremy's travelling time, from his cottage before he arrived at the scene by 3.52am...

    That's 2 minutes to get himself dressed and ready, to get himself out and into his car, and drive all the way to the farmhouse (that's a total of 9 minutes)...

    He had a maximum of 2 minutes additional time, to get himself ready, get out into his car, start it up, and start driving, only to have to allow right down when the occupants of CA/07 came hurtling along behind him on Tollsbury road, done slowed down to allow the opoliice to go hurtloiing past him!

    Everything I know about this case, tells me that Jeremy Bamber was not slow timing to delay his arrival at the farmhouse,I think it was reasonable to allow him a couple of minutes to get dressed after 3.42am, and drive, be delayed, and arrived at the scene by 3.52am..
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Caroline on October 14, 2018, 01:20:PM
    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)

    Previously, you stated that the tones were different. This positive and negative stuff doesn't matter because the exchange at Maldon was unmaned during the night and the operator would have no way of knowing that the phone was off the hook or if a conversation was underway. The only way to tell, was to break into the line - which is what happened.

    By the way, I know Ian and I emailed him, he also confirmed that the tones for engaged and off the hook are the same.
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: Steve_uk on October 14, 2018, 03:07:PM
    But we need some evidence of this Mike from Linda, we need evidence that Nevill called Police and it was concealed, that Julie was the Police's factotum, that Jeremy has an illegitimate child, that there exists a photograph of Sheila on the bed.


    As for banning people, there have been too many banned already when they could have been given a second chance upon receipt of an apology.
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 03:10:PM
    We now know that cops had the opportunity and the technology to be able to prove, that if Neville Bamber had, in fact telephoned his son (Jeremy Bamber) on the key occasion, that police would have been able to confirm, or to disprove such a truth! I am one of the person's, who if it could be proved, or proven to me that no such call ever took place. Who would agree that Jeremy Bamber has told a lie, and the reason he thought he could introduce such a lie, was / is because in one way or another he must be, was and is the killer!

    I don't get that vibe, since I think and believe that Neville Bamber did, and had made that / this call (xxxx all the xxxx xxxx members on red forum), they know nothing, they just steal information from our blue forum, and give an alternative interpretation upon it, the tests never agree with our or my interpretation of anything!

    Why can't they find something out on their own?

    Well, I guess they don't need to because they have got xxxxx amongst us!
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 14, 2018, 03:38:PM
    But we need some evidence of this Mike from Linda, please read DS Davidson's COLP witness statement for confirmation of this..we need evidence that Nevill called Police the alternative phone message log, 3.26am, exists and can be read by anyone, and everyone. Jeremy's call to PC West lasted all of around 9 minutes, before he set off to go to the farm, not 16 minutes... and it was concealed, the contents of Neville Bambers 3.26am phone call (log) was concealed during the trial - the lousy despicable Essex police and their despicable local CPS counterparts, choosing to simply allege that Jeremy's call to PC West occurred some 10 minutes before PC West himself recorded (3.36am). At no stage did the despicable CPS, or the dastardly Essex police, disclose the entirely two different phone log records, they simply attacked this stronghold in the evidence by falsely alleging that Jeremy's call to PC West took place, at 3.26am, instead of 3.36am! It didn't, Jeremy's call commenced at 3.36am, lasted some 9 minutes, and then Jeremy went off to go to the scene in his own car!that Julie was the Police's factotum, Julie Mugford', was a grass by any other description, a paid police Informant! If the news of the world paid her £25,000 for her story, how much was she paid in informant fees by the police?that Jeremy has an illegitimate child, contact me privately, I will recall the necessary information)that there exists a photograph of Sheila on the bed. you have got to be joking, right? Of course Sheila's body was photographed laying on top of the bed, what do you think about what DS Jones and DC Clark told Ann Eaton at Jeremy's cottage on the first morning of the police investigation (four murders and a suicide)? Do you think, and are you saying that Jones and Clark made everything up? We haven't even got confirmation yet that two lots of SOCO took crime scene photographs at the scene during different periods on the first morning, and until Essex police are brought to book regarding this horrific, despicable act, the public at large will continue to be fooled, and decieved! Hey, guess what? The CCRC have had the crime scene video taken at the scene with the bodies of victims and exhibits captured in different positions and locations, than those captured in photographs taken by PC Bird (2nd SOCO team), who 'supposefly photographed the bodies of the three adult victims prior to them being moved?
    I am sorry, but I don't buy into the shit which has been fed to the general public at large in this case! Cops aren't as efficient as the prosecution's lies are making out! 


    As for banning people, there have been too many banned already when they could have been given a second chance upon receipt of an apology. I disagree, the person's who have been banned here, were banned because they abused our other members, who are entitled to their own opinions!
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 15, 2018, 10:32:AM
    Back in August 1985, bt had the capability of establishing the length of individual calls which made up the units used to help calculate a customer's bill. This could be achieved by a trained engineer visiting the local exchange (substation), to obtain a comprehensive break down of all the calls which were made contained in whatever build up of units - Neville Bambers call to Jeremy , followed by Neville Bambers call to police at 3.26am, and the '999' call made from inside the farmhouse at around 6.09am, and the key 15 minute call made by DCI Harris to ACC Peter Simpson between 8.15am and 8.30am, could have been confirmed or disproved by adopting these practices and procedures!
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 15, 2018, 04:37:PM
    Back in August 1985, bt had the capability of establishing the length of individual calls which made up the units used to help calculate a customer's bill. This could be achieved by a trained engineer visiting the local exchange (substation), to obtain a comprehensive break down of all the calls which were made contained in whatever build up of units - Neville Bambers call to Jeremy , followed by Neville Bambers call to police at 3.26am, and the '999' call made from inside the farmhouse at around 6.09am, and the key 15 minute call made by DCI Harris to ACC Peter Simpson between 8.15am and 8.30am, could have been confirmed or disproved by adopting these practices and procedures!
    let's work backwards...

    We know that DCI Harris's call to ACC Peter Simpson between 8.15am and 8.30am, lasted some 15 minutes or so, we also know that the '999' call from white house farm from 6.09am, lasted until 8.15am ( that's 2 hours and 6 minutes in duration). Now if Neville Bamber did call the police at 3.26am as per the phone log contents, 'Daughter gone Berserk', etc.. the full duration of that call would have been found in the metering system. The call that Jeremy received from his father before 3.26am could not have lasted any longer than say 10 seconds...

    Prior to this, we know that June Bamber contacted her sister at about 10pm, and that she remained on the phone for about 30 minutes, or so...

    All of these phone events were capable of being identified, by the checks which could have been made by a BT engineer at the local substation exchange!

    If cops had authorised these checks to be carried out, and they had found evidence of a deception, or that there was no truth whatsoever in Jeremy's account, the prosecution's case would have claimed that there was no records to back up what Jeremy had said, when if the truth be known there would have been!
    Title: Re: The telephone off the hook
    Post by: mike tesko on October 16, 2018, 11:56:AM
    (1) the 15 minute long Harris Simpson call, (2) the 2 hours and 6 minute long '999' call, (3) the duration of Neville Bambers call to police at 3.26am, (4) the 10 seconds duration call made by Neville Bamber to Jeremy, just beforehand, (5) the 30 minute call between June Bamber and Pamela Boutflour between 10pm and 10.30pm on the previous evening, all of these calls could have been identified using the technical expertise of a qualified and well trained bt engineer capable of extracting these call details from the metering system in use at that time at the local (substation) exchange which dealt with the phone lines at white house farm, and 9 Head Street, Goldhanger. If Essex police did not go to the trouble of checking any of this out, you can rest assured that they had confirmation by another source that all such calls were made from Whf and Jeremy's cottage!