Why Nevill didn't call the Police

[smiffy]

311. The last of the flatmates, Susan Battersby, made a statement on 10 September. In that statement she said that she had been woken by the telephone and had looked at her radio clock and noticed that it was 3.15 a.m. She went on to point out that the time might not be accurate because she kept her clock 10 minutes fast. On 19 December, she made a further statement. In that statement she again referred to the telephone call being at 3.15 a.m. but later in the statement she said:
“I can say that sometime during the evening of Thursday 8 August 1985, I telephoned Julie at Jeremy’s house in Goldhanger. I spoke to Julie in relation to the time of the telephone call from Jeremy to our flat during the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985. I told Julie that Jeremy had phoned her at 3.12 a.m. I can now remember that when I looked at my clock radio display, the time showed 3.12 a.m. Previously I had said the phone call was at 3.15 a.m. I am positive the time was 3.12 a.m. I was aware that Julie wanted to know the time of this phone call as she had phoned the flat trying to contact me that day when she spoke to Helen Eaton.”


I have no doubts here...she is plainly lying......a deceiver. oh  she was the one that was party to the cheque fraud with JM wasnt she...

[Hartley]

The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”

Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.

Or it's simply a verb? 

[smiffy]

The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”

Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.

Or it's simply a verb? 

told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.

But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops  story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..

[Hartley]

The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”

Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.

Or it's simply a verb? 

told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.

No it's not, it depends on the context, a sentence may be forceful or aggressive, the word 'told' is simply a word.

Anyway I don't really know why I'm replying to you, your suggestion regarding the word 'told' is utterly ridiculous.

[paulg]

Smite away people for my next comment, i'll consider them as applauds.

Do you want to know Smiffy what the accumulative odds are for everyone to be involved in some conspiracy?

And to not break rank for 26 years?

You, i, and others, have to accept that some statements are done to the best of peoples memory.

Maybe, just maybe, the one person thats not telling the truth is serving in prison??

And yes, i know he took a lie detector test, totally unreliable.

[curiousessex]

The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”

Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.

Or it's simply a verb? 

told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.

But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops  story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..

Smiffy

OK so lets look at it another way without involving any witnesses who in your opinion appear to be colluding with police.

According to your opinion what time did Jeremy telephone JM in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?

[smiffy]

Smite away people for my next comment, i'll consider them as applauds.

Do you want to know Smiffy what the accumulative odds are for everyone to be involved in some conspiracy?

And to not break rank for 26 years?

You, i, and others, have to accept that some statements are done to the best of peoples memory.

Maybe, just maybe, the one person thats not telling the truth is serving in prison??

And yes, i know he took a lie detector test, totally unreliable.

The odds are very low indeed...
When an organisation such as the police is involved that has control over its staff and information with threats and fears involved it is all very simple to maintain the lie for many have a lot to lose.
Reality check yourself for incorrectly applied statistics mislead.

[smiffy]

The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”

Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.

Or it's simply a verb? 

told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.

But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops  story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..

Smiffy

OK so lets look at it another way without involving any witnesses who in your opinion appear to be colluding with police.

According to your opinion what time did Jeremy telephone JM in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?

probably the time he said he did...that makes sense...he would be more awake and concious of the time than people who may have been wakened by the phone call.
They could have checked the phone records....you know...  the ones police claimed did not exist and that have been kept hidden.

[Hartley]

The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”

Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.

Or it's simply a verb? 

told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.

But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops  story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..

Smiffy

OK so lets look at it another way without involving any witnesses who in your opinion appear to be colluding with police.

According to your opinion what time did Jeremy telephone JM in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?

probably the time he said he did...that makes sense...he would be more awake and concious of the time than people who may have been wakened by the phone call.
They could have checked the phone records....you know...  the ones police claimed did not exist and that have been kept hidden.

That's the whole point, JB has changed his mind over the time of the call.

[curiousessex]

The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”

Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.

Or it's simply a verb? 

told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.

But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops  story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..

Smiffy

OK so lets look at it another way without involving any witnesses who in your opinion appear to be colluding with police.

According to your opinion what time did Jeremy telephone JM in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?

probably the time he said he did...that makes sense...he would be more awake and concious of the time than people who may have been wakened by the phone call.
They could have checked the phone records....you know...  the ones police claimed did not exist and that have been kept hidden.

What time did Jeremy say he called JM?

No one seems to know......... and Mike will not make available Jeremy's original witness statement.

[paulg]

Smite away people for my next comment, i'll consider them as applauds.

Do you want to know Smiffy what the accumulative odds are for everyone to be involved in some conspiracy?

And to not break rank for 26 years?

You, i, and others, have to accept that some statements are done to the best of peoples memory.

Maybe, just maybe, the one person thats not telling the truth is serving in prison??

And yes, i know he took a lie detector test, totally unreliable.

The odds are very low indeed...
When an organisation such as the police is involved that has control over its staff and information with threats and fears involved it is all very simple to maintain the lie for many have a lot to lose.
Reality check yourself for incorrectly applied statistics mislead.

And the odds on the one person telling the truth in your opinion?

I'm not a favourite backer normally, but i'll go with the odds on he's guilty runner, doesn't offer value, but i won't lose money.

[vidvic]

The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”

Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.

Or it's simply a verb? 

told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.

But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops  story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..

Smiffy

OK so lets look at it another way without involving any witnesses who in your opinion appear to be colluding with police.

According to your opinion what time did Jeremy telephone JM in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?

probably the time he said he did...that makes sense...he would be more awake and concious of the time than people who may have been wakened by the phone call.
They could have checked the phone records....you know...  the ones police claimed did not exist and that have been kept hidden.

What time did Jeremy say he called JM?

No one seems to know......... and Mike will not make available Jeremy's original witness statement.

I suspect this is why we're not allowed to see JB's witness statements as they will show that originally JB was most unclear about his answers, evasive even.

Originally he said that the call from Nevill to him was at 3.10. He changes his mind on the next point. In one questioning he said he called JM Before he called the Police but later changed that.

He is now saying the call from Nevill was between 3.15-3.30.

At the 2002 appeal team JB tried to change the call from 3.00am(approx) to 3.30 but this was rejected.

[smiffy]

The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”

Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.

Or it's simply a verb? 

told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.

But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops  story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..

Smiffy

OK so lets look at it another way without involving any witnesses who in your opinion appear to be colluding with police.

According to your opinion what time did Jeremy telephone JM in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?

probably the time he said he did...that makes sense...he would be more awake and concious of the time than people who may have been wakened by the phone call.
They could have checked the phone records....you know...  the ones police claimed did not exist and that have been kept hidden.

What time did Jeremy say he called JM?

No one seems to know......... and Mike will not make available Jeremy's original witness statement.

I suspect this is why we're not allowed to see JB's witness statements as they will show that originally JB was most unclear about his answers, evasive even.

Originally he said that the call from Nevill to him was at 3.10. He changes his mind on the next point. In one questioning he said he called JM Before he called the Police but later changed that.

He is now saying the call from Nevill was between 3.15-3.30.

At the 2002 appeal team JB tried to change the call from 3.00am(approx) to 3.30 but this was rejected.

How can you know what JB said in statements etc unless you have access to them...you cant..so its  speculation on your part here vidvic.
Then again....how was JB's statements taken...in note form or tape recorded etc..?
who says it was written down correctly or typos were not made etc...
Police officers have been known to write down what they want many times and attribute the words to other people...I have experienced this personally.
How much misleading was carried out in interviews between JB and the police?...trickery and deception is well known to be part and parcel of police interrogation methods...which makes answers given unreliable.

[vidvic]

The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”

Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.

Or it's simply a verb? 

told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.

But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops  story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..

Smiffy

OK so lets look at it another way without involving any witnesses who in your opinion appear to be colluding with police.

According to your opinion what time did Jeremy telephone JM in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?

probably the time he said he did...that makes sense...he would be more awake and concious of the time than people who may have been wakened by the phone call.
They could have checked the phone records....you know...  the ones police claimed did not exist and that have been kept hidden.

What time did Jeremy say he called JM?

No one seems to know......... and Mike will not make available Jeremy's original witness statement.

I suspect this is why we're not allowed to see JB's witness statements as they will show that originally JB was most unclear about his answers, evasive even.

Originally he said that the call from Nevill to him was at 3.10. He changes his mind on the next point. In one questioning he said he called JM Before he called the Police but later changed that.

He is now saying the call from Nevill was between 3.15-3.30.

At the 2002 appeal team JB tried to change the call from 3.00am(approx) to 3.30 but this was rejected.

How can you know what JB said in statements etc unless you have access to them...you cant..so its  speculation on your part here vidvic.
Then again....how was JB's statements taken...in note form or tape recorded etc..?
who says it was written down correctly or typos were not made etc...
Police officers have been known to write down what they want many times and attribute the words to other people...I have experienced this personally.
How much misleading was carried out in interviews between JB and the police?...trickery and deception is well known to be part and parcel of police interrogation methods...which makes answers given unreliable.

Smiffy, so the only person in this whole case, who's word you will accept is JB? You won't accept statements, interviews with Journalists, witnesses, testimonials in court, nothing. JB is innocent, no discussion.

[vidvic]

It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.

The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.

The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)

By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.

He wasn't dressed when he took the call.

Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....

Impossible I'm afraid.

If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.

Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?

The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.

Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?