Why Nevill didn't call the Police

[grahameb]

We need to know, to which clock was each witness relying upon when describing events that are accompanied by timed reference?

At the moment, all these reports are being treated as though they were/are all being made against a universal clock that takers into account every eventuality and occurrence...

No they do not.

Joanne Woad testified she looked at her radio / alarm clock

Susan Battersby also detailed she had looked at her radio clock which she admits was kept 10 minutes fast. According to the Appeal details this was verified by her boyfriend and a policeman.

There is no universal clock at play in these two acounts.

A common feature is that both testimonies relate to times which are before Jeremy, by his own admission, has been woken by having received an alledged telephone call from Nevill.

Jeremy verbally details that it was a telephone call from Nevill that wakes him up around 3.15 / 3.30 am.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/

------------------

Well, you had better re-think, because Julie Mugford originally said that Jeremy called her at 3:30am, now it doesn't matter what the individual flatmates say about their own clocks being fast or slow, since taking into account that the times they refer to are / were different to what Mugford said, somebody is not telling the truth about the actual time that Jeremy made the call to Julie...

One of the flatmates clocks being 10 minutes fast, and the time they refer, does not equate with the original time (3:30am) that Julie Mugford gave to the police, no matter how hard you try to twist the facts to suit your argument...

Mugford and her friends give conflicting details about the time of the call, which has to be treated as unreliable, no matter which side of the fence you sit on...

Well noted Mike. +1

[mike tesko]

The only way you can proceed when you are dealing with a situation like this, is to say that the evidence of each witness occurred within its own time frame, against which has been described a set of circumstances, which may or may not overlap similar circumstances referred to by others, which may rely upon a different time frame...

[curiousessex]

...

[/quote

Mike

It is very important because it is impossible for Jeremy to be calling Julie before he wakes up with a prediction of trouble at White House Farm.

Jeremy admits he was woken by a telephone from Nevill and the line went dead. Jeremy immediately tries to call Nevill back but got the engaged tone at least twice. Apparently an explanation for this has been that Nevill is calling the police (re the 03.26 Telephone log being an alleged reference to a call from Nevill to the police).

This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.

If the 03.26 log refers to a call made by Nevill to the police, then Jeremy will have managed to telephone Julie in his sleep according to the flatmates who testified they had looked at their radio clocks when the telephone rang.

The earliest possible interpretation of the Police becoming aware of any type of incident happening at White House Farm is 03.26 no matter how the telephone logs may be interpreted.

It is Jeremy who states the telephone call from Nevill wakes him up, the line goes dead and he tries to call back and gets the engaged tone at least twice more.

Everyone can even hear him saying so in his own words because it is on, I think,  the Mirror website.

Understandably so, but Jeremy may have been mistaken in assuming it was Nevill making that call.

Removed para re my waking times as I got these back to front

Keira

Re your comment - 'This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.'

If Sheila made a call at 03.26 to the police why would the 03.26 police telephone log not include any indication that a female had made the call. Whether the call is, as has been alleged from the defence, was from Nevill or was a relay of Jeremy's call to the Police, as maintained by the prosecution it is a common factor that both calls involve males.

Did Sheila have a deep voice?

........ and were the Police at White House Farm by 03.26?

I didn't state that Sheila called the police, I don't know who she might have called or attempted to call. One or more calls to an unknown number was recorded from WHF though, wasn't it - by the operator monitoring the open line? Does anyone recall what time this was?

Keira

Can you explain this in more detail.

If an operator was monitoring the line and somebody tried to use the telephone the operator would have been able to speak with the person who was trying to make the call. The line was open with the operator monitoring it. The only reports from the logs, as far as I am aware, are reports from the operator monitoring the line that dog or dogs were barking.

I've found the reference now. The time was 5.40 a.m.

"At 5.40 a.m., just five minutes after the report that the TFU were engaged in conversation with someone inside the farm, the BT operator was asked by Essex Police to once again check the telephone line inside the farmhouse (Which had previously been confirmed as being off the hook) and at that time the operator reported that the telephone was now engaged.

Another five minutes passed and the police asked the operator to recheck the line; the operator reported that the handset was once again off its cradle at that point.  Jeremy believes this illustrates that someone was still alive in the house at that time because the handset in the kitchen must have been replaced or the cradle of the kitchen phone depressed and an outside number dialled which produced the engaged tone and then afterwards the handset laid back on the kitchen worktop to allow the operator to report that the phone was off its hook again."

I found it in David Shaw's manuscript: The Innocent Man.  So this rests on the assumption that Shaw is correct about this call.

I do not think there is anything in the Police logs to support this assumption. In fact there is probably enough given the line was open and being monitored by the GPO to suggest that the assumption is incorrect. In fact the White House Farm telephone would only effectively become usable if the GPO had terminated their end in order to close the line for it to be reopened for another call.

[Roch]

I think this could be a world record for the size of link category... But this blog has an interesting take on the JB/JM call scenario:

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-l-s2Wpf1ui8/TVrWhwaKt3I/AAAAAAAAAhI/ygkfQZRPJeU/s1600/julie%2Bm.jpg&imgrefurl=http://bambermugfordaccomplicestomurder.blogspot.com/2011/02/bamber-and-mugford-accomplices-in.html&usg=__qPDcPZc-6M5OQR0Nw1ke9bDZzoQ=&h=114&w=100&sz=3&hl=en&start=28&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=JydYV-18EQqCBM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=76&prev=/search%3Fq%3DJulie%2BMugford%26start%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dopera%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26channel%3Dsuggest%26ndsp%3D18%26tbm%3Disch&ei=4RYKTqjWO4WzhAfg7ZX2Dw

[mike tesko]

Operator terminated the open line connection, to allow DCI Harris to make contact with ACC peter Simpson by use of the kitchen phone at about 8:15am...

[curiousessex]

The only way you can proceed when you are dealing with a situation like this, is to say that the evidence of each witness occurred within its own time frame, against which has been described a set of circumstances, which may or may not overlap similar circumstances referred to by others, which may rely upon a different time frame...

What time did Jeremy say he made the call to Julie in his original witness statement which you have copy but will not post?

It would be good to know so we can at least try and understand Jeremy's own timeframe which may or may not overlap similar circumstances referred to by others........ such as police call logs.

[chochokeira]

...

[/quote

Mike

It is very important because it is impossible for Jeremy to be calling Julie before he wakes up with a prediction of trouble at White House Farm.

Jeremy admits he was woken by a telephone from Nevill and the line went dead. Jeremy immediately tries to call Nevill back but got the engaged tone at least twice. Apparently an explanation for this has been that Nevill is calling the police (re the 03.26 Telephone log being an alleged reference to a call from Nevill to the police).

This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.

If the 03.26 log refers to a call made by Nevill to the police, then Jeremy will have managed to telephone Julie in his sleep according to the flatmates who testified they had looked at their radio clocks when the telephone rang.

The earliest possible interpretation of the Police becoming aware of any type of incident happening at White House Farm is 03.26 no matter how the telephone logs may be interpreted.

It is Jeremy who states the telephone call from Nevill wakes him up, the line goes dead and he tries to call back and gets the engaged tone at least twice more.

Everyone can even hear him saying so in his own words because it is on, I think,  the Mirror website.

Understandably so, but Jeremy may have been mistaken in assuming it was Nevill making that call.

Removed para re my waking times as I got these back to front

Keira

Re your comment - 'This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.'

If Sheila made a call at 03.26 to the police why would the 03.26 police telephone log not include any indication that a female had made the call. Whether the call is, as has been alleged from the defence, was from Nevill or was a relay of Jeremy's call to the Police, as maintained by the prosecution it is a common factor that both calls involve males.

Did Sheila have a deep voice?

........ and were the Police at White House Farm by 03.26?

I didn't state that Sheila called the police, I don't know who she might have called or attempted to call. One or more calls to an unknown number was recorded from WHF though, wasn't it - by the operator monitoring the open line? Does anyone recall what time this was?

Keira

Can you explain this in more detail.

If an operator was monitoring the line and somebody tried to use the telephone the operator would have been able to speak with the person who was trying to make the call. The line was open with the operator monitoring it. The only reports from the logs, as far as I am aware, are reports from the operator monitoring the line that dog or dogs were barking.

I've found the reference now. The time was 5.40 a.m.

"At 5.40 a.m., just five minutes after the report that the TFU were engaged in conversation with someone inside the farm, the BT operator was asked by Essex Police to once again check the telephone line inside the farmhouse (Which had previously been confirmed as being off the hook) and at that time the operator reported that the telephone was now engaged.

Another five minutes passed and the police asked the operator to recheck the line; the operator reported that the handset was once again off its cradle at that point.  Jeremy believes this illustrates that someone was still alive in the house at that time because the handset in the kitchen must have been replaced or the cradle of the kitchen phone depressed and an outside number dialled which produced the engaged tone and then afterwards the handset laid back on the kitchen worktop to allow the operator to report that the phone was off its hook again."

I found it in David Shaw's manuscript: The Innocent Man.  So this rests on the assumption that Shaw is correct about this call.

I do not think there is anything in the Police logs to support this assumption. In fact there is probably enough given the line was open and being monitored by the GPO to suggest that the assumption is incorrect. In fact the White House Farm telephone would only effectively become usable if the GPO had terminated their end in order to close the line for it to be reopened for another call.

"the BT operator was asked by Essex Police to once again check the telephone line inside the farmhouse (Which had previously been confirmed as being off the hook)"

I assumed this meant that the operator was monitoring periodically rather than continuously.

Weren't the logs of this monitoring withheld?

[curiousessex]

Operator terminated the open line connection, to allow DCI Harris to make contact with ACC peter Simpson by use of the kitchen phone at about 8:15am...

Well I guess Sheila could not have tried to make the call Keira was refering to in David Shaw's manuscript.

[mike tesko]

Operator terminated the open line connection, to allow DCI Harris to make contact with ACC peter Simpson by use of the kitchen phone at about 8:15am...

Well I guess Sheila could not have tried to make the call Keira was refering to in David Shaw's manuscript.

----------------

So how did police make call to whf, at a time when line was open and giving an engaged tone?

[grahameb]

The only way you can proceed when you are dealing with a situation like this, is to say that the evidence of each witness occurred within its own time frame, against which has been described a set of circumstances, which may or may not overlap similar circumstances referred to by others, which may rely upon a different time frame...

[curiousessex]

Operator terminated the open line connection, to allow DCI Harris to make contact with ACC peter Simpson by use of the kitchen phone at about 8:15am...

Well I guess Sheila could not have tried to make the call Keira was refering to in David Shaw's manuscript.

----------------

So how did police make call to whf, at a time when line was open and giving an engaged tone?

Mike

I do not know if they did or did not. If you can post a reference to this in a call log or something similar or give a pointer to where it is detailed I will gladly provide you with a response.

[vidvic]

We need to know, to which clock was each witness relying upon when describing events that are accompanied by timed reference?

At the moment, all these reports are being treated as though they were/are all being made against a universal clock that takers into account every eventuality and occurrence...

No they do not.

Joanne Woad testified she looked at her radio / alarm clock

Susan Battersby also detailed she had looked at her radio clock which she admits was kept 10 minutes fast. According to the Appeal details this was verified by her boyfriend and a policeman.

There is no universal clock at play in these two acounts.

A common feature is that both testimonies relate to times which are before Jeremy, by his own admission, has been woken by having received an alledged telephone call from Nevill.

Jeremy verbally details that it was a telephone call from Nevill that wakes him up around 3.15 / 3.30 am.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/

------------------

Well, you had better re-think, because Julie Mugford originally said that Jeremy called her at 3:30am, now it doesn't matter what the individual flatmates say about their own clocks being fast or slow, since taking into account that the times they refer to are / were different to what Mugford said, somebody is not telling the truth about the actual time that Jeremy made the call to Julie...

One of the flatmates clocks being 10 minutes fast, and the time they refer, does not equate with the original time (3:30am) that Julie Mugford gave to the police, no matter how hard you try to twist the facts to suit your argument...

Mugford and her friends give conflicting details about the time of the call, which has to be treated as unreliable, no matter which side of the fence you sit on...

When JM was first asked the time of call see didn't say 3.30 with any certainty, she said 'around' 3.30 as she hadn't looked at a clock when she took the call. She then phoned her flatmates who all said that it was much nearer to 3.00. This was I believe a well documented moment in the investigation.

The call time from Nevill to JB has also changed. When JB gave his statements he said 3.10. Now it has changed to 3.15-3.30.

This might be unreliable to you Mike, but the Police, the Jury and the 2002 appeal do not think it unreliable.

This is anyhow a completely pointless argument. Unless there was real new evidence, which this log isn't, as it's already been disclosed, then any new appeal wouldn't touch it and nor would the CCRC.

[curiousessex]

We need to know, to which clock was each witness relying upon when describing events that are accompanied by timed reference?

At the moment, all these reports are being treated as though they were/are all being made against a universal clock that takers into account every eventuality and occurrence...

No they do not.

Joanne Woad testified she looked at her radio / alarm clock

Susan Battersby also detailed she had looked at her radio clock which she admits was kept 10 minutes fast. According to the Appeal details this was verified by her boyfriend and a policeman.

There is no universal clock at play in these two acounts.

A common feature is that both testimonies relate to times which are before Jeremy, by his own admission, has been woken by having received an alledged telephone call from Nevill.

Jeremy verbally details that it was a telephone call from Nevill that wakes him up around 3.15 / 3.30 am.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/

------------------

Well, you had better re-think, because Julie Mugford originally said that Jeremy called her at 3:30am, now it doesn't matter what the individual flatmates say about their own clocks being fast or slow, since taking into account that the times they refer to are / were different to what Mugford said, somebody is not telling the truth about the actual time that Jeremy made the call to Julie...

One of the flatmates clocks being 10 minutes fast, and the time they refer, does not equate with the original time (3:30am) that Julie Mugford gave to the police, no matter how hard you try to twist the facts to suit your argument...

Mugford and her friends give conflicting details about the time of the call, which has to be treated as unreliable, no matter which side of the fence you sit on...

When JM was first asked the time of call see didn't say 3.30 with any certainty, she said 'around' 3.30 as she hadn't looked at a clock when she took the call. She then phoned her flatmates who all said that it was much nearer to 3.00. This was I believe a well documented moment in the investigation.

The call time from Nevill to JB has also changed. When JB gave his statements he said 3.10. Now it has changed to 3.15-3.30.

This might be unreliable to you Mike, but the Police, the Jury and the 2002 appeal do not think it unreliable.

This is anyhow a completely pointless argument. Unless there was real new evidence, which this log isn't, as it's already been disclosed, then any new appeal wouldn't touch it and nor would the CCRC.

Vidvic

In my opinion it is a good thread with healthy discussion and debate........... By the way you started the thread!!

[mike tesko]

We need to know, to which clock was each witness relying upon when describing events that are accompanied by timed reference?

At the moment, all these reports are being treated as though they were/are all being made against a universal clock that takers into account every eventuality and occurrence...

No they do not.

Joanne Woad testified she looked at her radio / alarm clock

Susan Battersby also detailed she had looked at her radio clock which she admits was kept 10 minutes fast. According to the Appeal details this was verified by her boyfriend and a policeman.

There is no universal clock at play in these two acounts.

A common feature is that both testimonies relate to times which are before Jeremy, by his own admission, has been woken by having received an alledged telephone call from Nevill.

Jeremy verbally details that it was a telephone call from Nevill that wakes him up around 3.15 / 3.30 am.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/

------------------

Well, you had better re-think, because Julie Mugford originally said that Jeremy called her at 3:30am, now it doesn't matter what the individual flatmates say about their own clocks being fast or slow, since taking into account that the times they refer to are / were different to what Mugford said, somebody is not telling the truth about the actual time that Jeremy made the call to Julie...

One of the flatmates clocks being 10 minutes fast, and the time they refer, does not equate with the original time (3:30am) that Julie Mugford gave to the police, no matter how hard you try to twist the facts to suit your argument...

Mugford and her friends give conflicting details about the time of the call, which has to be treated as unreliable, no matter which side of the fence you sit on...

When JM was first asked the time of call see didn't say 3.30 with any certainty, she said 'around' 3.30 as she hadn't looked at a clock when she took the call. She then phoned her flatmates who all said that it was much nearer to 3.00. This was I believe a well documented moment in the investigation.

The call time from Nevill to JB has also changed. When JB gave his statements he said 3.10. Now it has changed to 3.15-3.30.

This might be unreliable to you Mike, but the Police, the Jury and the 2002 appeal do not think it unreliable.

This is anyhow a completely pointless argument. Unless there was real new evidence, which this log isn't, as it's already been disclosed, then any new appeal wouldn't touch it and nor would the CCRC.

----------------

I have already pointed out that the phone log itself bearing the time, 3:26am, was not disclosed in time for the trial, although there was some evidence about one of the clocks being 10 minutes fast - if the log itself had been disclosed all hell would have broke loose in court and the prosecutions case would have been exposed as a sham, because Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, and the gun which the police identified as the murder weapon belonged to Ralph Bamber, so log contents which refer daughter having got one of my guns, could only be a reference to Ralph making comments about his daughter and his own gun...

[mike tesko]

The other thing to take into account, is whether or not the clock that was relied upon to record the time of the 3:26am, log, was accurate, or so many minutes fast, or slow? Just because it has the time 3:26am, upon it, it could easily have been 10 minutes fast like the clock in the control room? I cannot imagine clocks in a police station all telling different times? You would think the police would be more efficient when it came to time keeping, especially as if they had kept good time on all their clocks, we might have been able to make more sense out of the timing of the calls to the police station by Ralph and Jeremy...

If the timing was out by say 10 minutes, the timed log contents timed at 3:26am, could have occurred at around 3:16am, and the occupations of CA07 could have been dispatched to the scene at 3:25am, which would then be ahead of the timing of the call that Jeremy made to the police at a revised 3:26am...