Telecoms in 1985

[ILB]

Jeremy Bamber in his police interviews stated he was adamant that the police could check that his father called him

Why has this never been established one way or another? You could trace calls back to the seventies? Why such grey area over this? If a call is established being place at WHF at a certain time, coupled with Bambers call to west. that excludes of course Bamber being able to travel from between WHF and goldhanger ( appropriate time gap) ( i.e could have made the call himself. Anything that suggests that he couldn't, too narrow timeframe, surely proves Bambers innocence???

Surely if it could have been established Bamber NEVER received the call his case falls apart?

[Jane]

Jeremy Bamber in his police interviews stated he was adamant that the police could check that his father called him

Why has this never been established one way or another? You could trace calls back to the seventies? Why such grey area over this? If a call is established being place at WHF at a certain time, coupled with Bambers call to west. that excludes of course Bamber being able to travel from between WHF and goldhanger ( appropriate time gap) ( i.e could have made the call himself. Anything that suggests that he couldn't, too narrow timeframe, surely proves Bambers innocence???

Surely if it could have been established Bamber NEVER received the call his case falls apart?

There are problems with proving negatives!

My great aunt lived in Tollesbury, only about a mile and and a half from WHF. In those far distant days when one dialled 0 for the operator, there was no problem. When the system first changed, I seem to think that the area came under the Colchester exchange, the numbers having the Colchester prefix. At some point, they changed again. The 'new' area coming under Maldon. There were certainly hiccoughs when the change over happened.

There is a full description of how the system worked given by the area engineer who was in charge at the time. Now retired, he answered questions by a member here who was looking for information.

[JackieD]

Jeremy Bamber in his police interviews stated he was adamant that the police could check that his father called him

Why has this never been established one way or another? You could trace calls back to the seventies? Why such grey area over this? If a call is established being place at WHF at a certain time, coupled with Bambers call to west. that excludes of course Bamber being able to travel from between WHF and goldhanger ( appropriate time gap) ( i.e could have made the call himself. Anything that suggests that he couldn't, too narrow timeframe, surely proves Bambers innocence???

Surely if it could have been established Bamber NEVER received the call his case falls apart?

As soon as a call is made on a landline, the phone company can track and trace it immediately. This has been the case since the mid-1980s, when the introduction of electronic switching systems replaced automatic electro-mechanical switching systems, such as the crossbar-switching system.

[Adam]

As said it would not be hard to cover the calls -

Ring his answering machine from WHF.

Leave a 10 second message. Disconnect call. Meaning he could not call back if answering from his cottage. As he stated.

Leave bedroom/kitchen phone off the hook, as evidence shows.

Exit WHF. Cycle back. As evidence shows. Time estimate 15 minutes.

Delete message. Ring the police.

---------

Believe he intially said he immediately rang the police. Later saying he spent around 15 minutes looking for the number of Chelmsford police. Which matches the cycle back time.

[Munksa]

As soon as a call is made on a landline, the phone company can track and trace it immediately. This has been the case since the mid-1980s, when the introduction of electronic switching systems replaced automatic electro-mechanical switching systems, such as the crossbar-switching system.

Jak, can you guide me to the evidence of this?

[Adam]

As said it would not be hard to cover the calls -

Ring his answering machine from WHF.

Leave a 10 second message. Disconnect call. Meaning he could not call back if answering from his cottage. As he stated.

Leave bedroom/kitchen phone off the hook, as evidence shows.

Exit WHF. Cycle back. As evidence shows. Time estimate 15 minutes.

Delete message. Ring the police.

---------

Believe he intially said he immediately rang the police. Later saying he spent around 15 minutes looking for the number of Chelmsford police. Which matches the cycle back time.

The only issue is how long it takes for Bamber to be able to make outside calls after Nevill's call goes dead.

I assume once Bamber also hangs up, it would be an open line & he would be able to instantly make calls.

[Munksa]

The only issue is how long it takes for Bamber to be able to make outside calls after Nevill's call goes dead.

I assume once Bamber also hangs up, it would be an open line & he would be able to instantly make calls.

Imo there is no point breaking head over this issue, if calls made could be detected and raced this will be a common knowledge to everyone, BT cannot hide such a public information even if they wanted to but most importantly the Defence would have done their own homework finding out as this call was so crucial. Of course they couldn't detect because it didn't exist! It's that simple.

[Munksa]

I am not from this era so would know the system then. But there was a guy in a FB page I was in around the time of the ITV series airing that's also when I joined that group. He worked for BT, not an engineer but biling dept and as per him all  ISD calls were itemised in 1985 so could be traced but for local calls it was not itemised so couldn't be traced, only the minutes used will be clocked and charged. I think he could be right that's why Mugford & Co did not have outgoing call facility, as students they could have run a huge bill and problem for the landlord if they refused to pay or dispute who made the most calls when it's time to pay bill.

Anyways if it existed Defence would have dug it out. And if it did get traced there was a call from WFH to Bamber's cottage at the said time. lmo, Bamber wouldnt be where he is now.

[Adam]

I am not from this era so would know the system then. But there was a guy in a FB page I was in around the time of the ITV series airing that's also when I joined that group. He worked for BT, not an engineer but biling dept and as per him all  ISD calls were itemised in 1985 so could be traced but for local calls it was not itemised so couldn't be traced, only the minutes used will be clocked and charged. I think he could be right that's why Mugford & Co did not have outgoing call facility, as students they could have run a huge bill and problem for the landlord if they refused to pay or dispute who made the most calls when it's time to pay bill.

Anyways if it existed Defence would have dug it out. And if it did get traced there was a call from WFH to Bamber's cottage at the said time. lmo, Bamber wouldnt be where he is now.

The prosecution would say that was Bamber calling his answering machine.

[Adam]

Obviously Bamber having his answering machine switched off, resulting in him eventually answering Nevill's call is very suspiscious.

Supporters have said answering machines were not on 24/7 then. Unlike now.

[Munksa]

The prosecution would say that was Bamber calling his answering machine.

Sorry I don't see the relevance of answering machine argument.

There was no trace facility, period! If there was don't you think Rivlin wouldnt have dug it out if it existed?  It's a simple logic really.

Unless of course the supporters say BT too conspired with the Police! But that argument does not work as BT can't hide a public information.

[Munksa]

The prosecution would say that was Bamber calling his answering machine.

The prosecution didn't say though  because the call couldn't be traced.

So not sure what your point is?

[Adam]

Sorry I don't see the relevance of answering machine argument.

There was no trace facility, period! If there was don't you think Rivlin wouldnt have dug it out if it existed?  It's a simple logic really.

Unless of course the supporters say BT too conspired with the Police! But that argument does not work as BT can't hide a public information.

JackieD says there was a trace facility.

Anyway, if Bamber was unsure at the time, he would take the 'better safe than sorry' position & cover himself. As per reply 3.

[Munksa]

JackieD says there was a trace facility.

Anyway, if Bamber was unsure at the time, he would take the 'better safe than sorry' position & cover himself. As per reply 3.

Oh thanks I get it now

[Munksa]

Jeremy Bamber in his police interviews stated he was adamant that the police could check that his father called him

Why has this never been established one way or another? You could trace calls back to the seventies? Why such grey area over this? If a call is established being place at WHF at a certain time, coupled with Bambers call to west. that excludes of course Bamber being able to travel from between WHF and goldhanger ( appropriate time gap) ( i.e could have made the call himself. Anything that suggests that he couldn't, too narrow timeframe, surely proves Bambers innocence???

Surely if it could have been established Bamber NEVER received the call his case falls apart?

If he had planned this murders for months, I am sure he would have done his homework if calls could be traced or not.

One could say he was adamant because he knew it couldn't.

He even said a pathetic thing in desperation , that a witness could have seen him through the window taking the call! Ya right, what are the chances of someone seeing him taking a call at 3am in a quiet rural  " sleepy" village?