Telecoms in 1985

[Adam]

Oh thanks I get it now

Bamber left the kitchen/bedroom phone off the hook. Would only take a few extra seconds to also phone his answering machine.

[Rob_]

It's hard to find information on this Munksa, but the 1980s was the first time people could buy a phone rather than rent it.

In 1985 you were charged a quarterly rental of £13.95 and you were charged for each call. A call was 5p per unit so would be more depending on distance?

So BT knew how many calls you made and what type of call for example long distance but I cannot pin down if they knew when you called and who?

So I think JB would have to assume calls were logged and fake them if he did the crime? If he lied and the police could trace what calls were made he is done for.

For you Adam source: Daily Express 7th October 1985

[Adam]

It's hard to find information on this Munksa, but the 1980s was the first time people could buy a phone rather than rent it.

In 1985 you were charged a quarterly rental of £13.95 and you were charged for each call. A call was 5p per unit so would be more depending on distance?

So BT knew how many calls you made and what type of call for example long distance but I cannot pin down if they knew when you called and who?

So I think JB would have to assume calls were logged and fake them if he did the crime? If he lied and the police could trace what calls were made he is done for.

For you Adam source: Daily Express 7th October 1985

I don't understand.

[Armchair Detective]

It's hard to find information on this Munksa, but the 1980s was the first time people could buy a phone rather than rent it.

In 1985 you were charged a quarterly rental of £13.95 and you were charged for each call. A call was 5p per unit so would be more depending on distance?

So BT knew how many calls you made and what type of call for example long distance but I cannot pin down if they knew when you called and who?

So I think JB would have to assume calls were logged and fake them if he did the crime? If he lied and the police could trace what calls were made he is done for.

For you Adam source: Daily Express 7th October 1985

Yes, unless he was sure there was no way of tracing the calls and was just bluffing in his interviews. Maybe it was in an episode of Juliet Bravo or something.

Remember that Julie said his plan was that a call to Goldhanger would be placed and could be checked on the last number redial facility on the handset which lends weight to the idea that Julie and perhaps JB both knew local calls were not traceable. 

[Munksa]

It's hard to find information on this Munksa, but the 1980s was the first time people could buy a phone rather than rent it.

In 1985 you were charged a quarterly rental of £13.95 and you were charged for each call. A call was 5p per unit so would be more depending on distance?

So BT knew how many calls you made and what type of call for example long distance but I cannot pin down if they knew when you called and who?

So I think JB would have to assume calls were logged and fake them if he did the crime? If he lied and the police could trace what calls were made he is done for.

For you Adam source: Daily Express 7th October 1985

Yes Rob I agree it's hard to find the info. I think he said local charges was less than regional. And if you requested to see how much local or regional you called if you were not happy with your bill, that was possible but will only show you the total time you called for both  and not the number or day/time you called.

I can't remember all as it was beginning of 2020, I didn't personally ask him, only read comments. He was undecided if JB is guilty or not, I think he was from Essex too.

[Rob_]

Yes Rob I agree it's hard to find the info. I think he said local charges was less than regional. And if you requested to see how much local or regional you called if you were not happy with your bill, that was possible but will only show you the total time you called for both  and not the number or day/time you called.

I can't remember all as it was beginning of 2020, I didn't personally ask him, only read comments. He was undecided if JB is guilty or not, I think he was from Essex too.

If JB committed the crime, carrying it out and not leaving any tell tail evidence and fooling the police etc. was already risky beyond belief lots of things could have gone wrong. If on top of that he thought he had to fake the calls in case they were logged somewhere then why try and create a alibi using the phones? He was also committing a crime with himself as the main suspect? He must have known or thought the police would have at least been highly suspicious?

[Adam]

If JB committed the crime, carrying it out and not leaving any tell tail evidence and fooling the police etc. was already risky beyond belief lots of things could have gone wrong. If on top of that he thought he had to fake the calls in case they were logged somewhere then why try and create a alibi using the phones? He was also committing a crime with himself as the main suspect? He must have known or thought the police would have at least been highly suspicious?

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10991.0.html

Feel free to comment & vote on my recent poll.

[Jane]

If JB committed the crime, carrying it out and not leaving any tell tail evidence and fooling the police etc. was already risky beyond belief lots of things could have gone wrong. If on top of that he thought he had to fake the calls in case they were logged somewhere then why try and create a alibi using the phones? He was also committing a crime with himself as the main suspect? He must have known or thought the police would have at lest been highly suspicious?

Rob, you're thinking with your own intellect -maybe, with the benefit of hindsight, outside the box- JB, who we're assured wasn't the brightest star in the firmament may have been blessed more with arrogance, than intellect. His capacity for thinking, then, would have been limited to his narrow parameters.

[Munksa]

If JB committed the crime, carrying it out and not leaving any tell tail evidence and fooling the police etc. was already risky beyond belief lots of things could have gone wrong. If on top of that he thought he had to fake the calls in case they were logged somewhere then why try and create a alibi using the phones? He was also committing a crime with himself as the main suspect? He must have known or thought the police would have at least been highly suspicious?

There is no guarantee for anything. If your motive is more important than the danger you take risk!

[Armchair Detective]

The way I see it is there are only 3 possibilities:

1) JB researched whether local calls could be traced as part of his year long plotting of the murders.

2) JB had no idea and was either bluffing or telling the truth.

3) The CORRUPT police CONSPIRED with the FREEMASONS at BT and hid all evidence of the calls on the orders of the Grandmaster Flash of the Maldon Skull and Bones. 

[lookout]

Because he didn't pay the bills he'd have had no idea of what was recorded/ registered and what wasn't.

[guest29835]

If he planned it, he planned it.  Tracing of phone calls is a very obvious point.  If what Rob said on the other thread is true and the line could only be closed at the caller end, then Jeremy can't stage the call from Nevill.  It's impossible.  Furthermore, we know that Jeremy did later on make calls from Bourtree Cottage.
Thus, what the guilt camp are telling us is that Jeremy has decided to wing it and invent a call from Nevill and hope either that the police don't check with BT or there is no practicable way of establishing the position.  I find that rather unlikely.  The pro-guilt camp agree with me, which is why they explain it as Jeremy's arrogance.  Notice what Jane is saying.  Think about it.  Jane is tacitly conceding the point, but saying: 'Oh, but Jeremy is arrogant and would have chanced it'.  Jeremy's supposed 'arrogance' has become the deus ex machina of the pro-guilt camp as they confront the practical and logical difficulties of the prosecution scenario.

My own belief is that, if Jeremy did this, the phone calls were an unplanned aspect and thought up on the hoof due to Nevill ending up in the kitchen.  This is based on the simple logical observation that Jeremy could not - and would not - plan for Nevill to be in the kitchen.  Even if Jeremy knew that Nevill would be sleeping downstairs, he would kill Nevill where he found him, for two reasons: (i). he needs to make it look like Sheila has run amok; and (ii). he needs to kill Nevill anyway.  If Nevill's body is found in such a way that suggests he was struggling with Sheila in the kitchen, Jeremy may have decided he needed to give himself what he considered to be the extra insurance of an 'alibi', otherwise investigators might well ask how it came to be that Nevill is running through the house away from a slight, weak woman (of course, there are rational explanations for this anyway - for one thing, she has a loaded rifle - but we need not go into that now, and the point is that Jeremy will not have thought about it that way).

In that scenario, Jeremy may well have decided to wing it, but the guilt camp also want us to believe that Jeremy would tell the police to make inquiries with BT.  Why would Jeremy do that? 

My goodness, this Jeremy was a helpful, public-spirited chap wasn't he!  He commits mass murder and helps the police catch him.  I suppose it was only fair, as Taff did give him a sporting chance at the start.

[Adam]

Because he didn't pay the bills he'd have had no idea of what was recorded/ registered and what wasn't.

Who paid the bills, 'The Bill Fairy'?

[guest29835]

Who paid the bills, 'The Bill Fairy'?

The Bill Fairy.  Another suspect.  Thanks Adam.  One for the CT.

[Jane]

Because he didn't pay the bills he'd have had no idea of what was recorded/ registered and what wasn't.

Bills for his address/phone number would most certainly have been delivered to his house. He MAY have handed them, unopened, to the farm secretary, but I'm inclined to think he'd have shown some interest in what the calls cost.