Telecoms in 1985

[Adam]

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.

Very doubtful. Once Bamber puts his phone down if taking a call from Nevill, then the line will be open.

It's called ending a phone conversation.

[Adam]

Very doubtful. Once Bamber puts his phone down if taking a call from Nevill, then the line will be open.

It's called ending a phone conversation.

Bamber did say the line went dead on Nevill's side ' phone put down.

So all Bamber had to do was put the phone down on his end.

Reply 3 has a straight forward scenario. Assuming Bamber wanted to play it safe.

[guest29835]

Very doubtful. Once Bamber puts his phone down if taking a call from Nevill, then the line will be open.

It's called ending a phone conversation.

You've just contradicted yourself.  You mean you think the line would be closed?

The problem Rob describes is well-known, so I will investigate the point myself and not rely on your assurances, thanks. 

Interesting to know we've hit another roadblock in the prosecution case that can only be overcome by falling back on 'Jeremy's arrogance'.

[guest29835]

Bamber did say the line went dead on Nevill's side ' phone put down.

So all Bamber had to do was put the phone down on his end.

Reply 3 has a straight forward scenario. Assuming Bamber wanted to play it safe.

Exactly.  According to Jeremy, he was able to make calls from Bourtree Cottage.

[Adam]

You've just contradicted yourself.  You mean you think the line would be closed?

The problem Rob describes is well-known, so I will investigate the point myself and not rely on your assurances, thanks. 

Interesting to know we've hit another roadblock in the prosecution case that can only be overcome by falling back on 'Jeremy's arrogance'.

Do you not think that ending a phone conversation in 1985 was by both ends putting their phone down?

[Adam]

Supporters do come up with crazy theories.

Nevill putting his phone down after saying 11 words to Bamber, apparently means Bamber couldn't make outside calls. Although he called the police & Julie.

[Adam]

As said, Bamber would -

Ring his answering machine from WHF. Leave a 10 second message. Hang up.

That ends the call. On both ends.

[Adam]

You've just contradicted yourself.  You mean you think the line would be closed?

The problem Rob describes is well-known, so I will investigate the point myself and not rely on your assurances, thanks. 

Interesting to know we've hit another roadblock in the prosecution case that can only be overcome by falling back on 'Jeremy's arrogance'.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10997.0.html

No roadblocks. But keep trying. After 36 years, Bamber needs new ideas.

[guest29835]

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10997.0.html

No roadblocks. But keep trying. After 36 years, Bamber needs new ideas.

Thanks Adam, but after the windsurfing fiasco, I'm a laughing stock at the CCRC and Jeremy won't answer my letters.  Things went from bad to worse when I turned up at the Essex Police HQ demo with my surf board and dressed in Bermuda shorts.  That's magic mushrooms for you!  Oh well!  Good job you're here to keep me on the right track.

[lookout]

Who paid the bills, 'The Bill Fairy'?

The bank of mum and dad probably.

[Rob_]

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

We are talking about five murders including two children, not nicking a bit of petrol from the local garage, I don't understand these sorts of comments?

[Rob_]

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.

Saying someone is not the brightest because they don't do well at school is very misleading Jane. I find it is usually due to motivation?

Who is the brightest, someone who works every hour of every day and gets a grade A, or someone who does nothing just turns up and get a grade C?

I know people who left school with no qualifications, but latter were able to get a degree once their priorities changed.

[guest29835]

As said, Bamber would -

Ring his answering machine from WHF. Leave a 10 second message. Hang up.

That ends the call. On both ends.

I thought of this as well.  It's in my Jeremy scenario, albeit I agree that if he is going to stage the call in a way that is sensitive to timings (which is the only reason he would do it), then he must terminate the call at the farm end, leave the handset off the hook, and he absolutely must return to Bourtree Cottage by push bike (whatever the practicalities of this method of conveyance, another issue).

I had understood that an answerphone at Bourtree Cottage was examined by the police, but I don't recall where that is confirmed.  Assuming that is the case, then it must be that Jeremy had a second answerphone, which he rigged up on the night and then hid.

Another issue here is, if Jeremy did have an answerphone at the cottage that was seized by the police, how did Jeremy take the call from Nevill in the first place?  Surely if Nevill had first started speaking into the answerphone, that evidence would have been retained by police?  Is Jeremy saying that he just didn't connect the answerphone that evening (they did have an on-off switch in those days, I seem to recall)?

[Jane]

Saying someone is not the brightest because they don't do well at school is very misleading Jane. I find it is usually due to motivation?

Who is the brightest, someone who works every hour of every day and gets a grade A, or someone who does nothing just turns up and get a grade C?

I know people who left school with no qualifications, but latter were able to get a degree once their priorities changed.

Oh dear! That was not at all what I meant, Rob. Why would I, when I was one of those who left school with nothing. I was in my 40's before I embarked on a degree. It's more than possible that JB, in his early 20s, hadn't reached his full potential. Even so, intellect, and what's called "common sense" don't necessarily go hand in hand.

[Rob_]

I thought of this as well.  It's in my Jeremy scenario, albeit I agree that if he is going to stage the call in a way that is sensitive to timings (which is the only reason he would do it), then he must terminate the call at the farm end, leave the handset off the hook, and he absolutely must return to Bourtree Cottage by push bike (whatever the practicalities of this method of conveyance, another issue).

I had understood that an answerphone at Bourtree Cottage was examined by the police, but I don't recall where that is confirmed.  Assuming that is the case, then it must be that Jeremy had a second answerphone, which he rigged up on the night and then hid.

Another issue here is, if Jeremy did have an answerphone at the cottage that was seized by the police, how did Jeremy take the call from Nevill in the first place?  Surely if Nevill had first started speaking into the answerphone, that evidence would have been retained by police?  Is Jeremy saying that he just didn't connect the answerphone that evening (they did have an on-off switch in those days, I seem to recall)?

If the answer phone was off QC the phone would ring but no call would be registered? I did read somewhere that the police removed a answerphone but don't quote me.