Author Topic: Telecoms in 1985  (Read 15651 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33788
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #60 on: January 08, 2022, 04:46:PM »
He passed the selection exam for the upper school at Gresham's, where he showed some ability in maths and geography.  Later, he was admitted into the Sixth Form at Gresham's to take A-levels.  He performed indifferently and switched to a local FE college, where he continued with a maths A-level. 

I think we're over-labouring a simple point.  I don't say he was a potential candidate for MENSA, I merely make the observation that he was and is manifestly of above-average intelligence.  He's not a stupid person, let us put it that way.  I believe he was intellectually capable of executing a murder plan of this kind.  Whether he actually did so is another matter.

Intelligence shows itself in different forms. Perhaps he'd always hated the idea of being a farmer, but went along with it to please Nevill, until the time for putting it into action got closer, and he did everything in his power not to?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #61 on: January 08, 2022, 04:46:PM »
Did JB say it or was it made up ?

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33788
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #62 on: January 08, 2022, 04:51:PM »
Did JB say it or was it made up ?

Going on the belief that actions speak louder than words, when a bit of extra was called for, it was the hospitality trade he turned to.

Offline Munksa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #63 on: January 08, 2022, 04:53:PM »

That can't really be added to, Munksa.  It says it all.

I don't know if it's the right thing to say or not and this is no disrespect to Nevill and June. So forgive me.

If he was not adopted and in the care of his biological parents I can actually see him working as a banker/hedge funds or property business. You don't have to be a intellectual but a bit of under hand and money minded is sufficient, you don't need master's degree , look at Alan Sugar, right idea at the right time.

He could have even met Jackie and married her 😂

Offline Munksa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #64 on: January 08, 2022, 04:55:PM »
Restaurant business and wine merchant will probably suit him too.

Offline Munksa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #65 on: January 08, 2022, 04:57:PM »
Where, or how did this myth begin that JB wasn't interested in farming ?

His own friend of that time Brett Collins too!

How do you know it's a myth?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #66 on: January 08, 2022, 05:00:PM »
Going on the belief that actions speak louder than words, when a bit of extra was called for, it was the hospitality trade he turned to.





As a side-line and also for the social side of things. Farming is or can be solitary business but it's now obvious that JB doesn't mind his own company----which says a lot under the circumstances.
He'd have continued farming.

Offline Rob_

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4869
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #67 on: January 08, 2022, 05:00:PM »
I don't know if it's the right thing to say or not and this is no disrespect to Nevill and June. So forgive me.

If he was not adopted and in the care of his biological parents I can actually see him working as a banker/hedge funds or property business. You don't have to be a intellectual but a bit of under hand and money minded is sufficient, you don't need master's degree , look at Alan Sugar, right idea at the right time.

He could have even met Jackie and married her 😂


Anyone of average ability can get a master's degree Munksa.

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #68 on: January 08, 2022, 05:02:PM »
Intelligence shows itself in different forms. Perhaps he'd always hated the idea of being a farmer, but went along with it to please Nevill, until the time for putting it into action got closer, and he did everything in his power not to?

It may well be, yes.  Or it may not be.  Who is to know, other than Jeremy himself?

Offline Munksa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #69 on: January 08, 2022, 05:07:PM »

Anyone of average ability can get a master's degree Munksa.

They sure can, you don't have to be an  Einstein to have one but you still need hard work and interest in studies though without that you won't achieve. Some children don't like Schol at all that does not make them a Dumbo. That child might actually benefit more from home schooling or more into extra curriculum than academics.

Didn't Bamber say prison is actually better than his Gresham days? That should say a lot.

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #70 on: January 08, 2022, 05:27:PM »
He passed the selection exam for the upper school at Gresham's, where he showed some ability in maths and geography.  Later, he was admitted into the Sixth Form at Gresham's to take A-levels.  He performed indifferently and switched to a local FE college, where he continued with a maths A-level. 

I think we're over-labouring a simple point.  I don't say he was a potential candidate for MENSA, I merely make the observation that he was and is manifestly of above-average intelligence.  He's not a stupid person, let us put it that way.  I believe he was intellectually capable of executing a murder plan of this kind.  Whether he actually did so is another matter.

Have you got a source of Bamber passing the selection exam for the upper school at Gresham's?

Afaik Bamber was not admitted into the sixth form at Gresham's.  Have you got a source?

Have you got a source where he switched to a local FE college and continued with a maths A level?

The reason I ask it that it contradicts info put out by the CT and also Carol Ann Lee. 

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44576
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #71 on: January 08, 2022, 05:29:PM »
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)?

That was the prosecution case.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44576
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #72 on: January 08, 2022, 05:30:PM »
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)?

Why would he need that. He can just delete the message he left from WHF.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44576
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #73 on: January 08, 2022, 05:33:PM »
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)?

Agree with that.

The answering machine would have come on before Bamber woke.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #74 on: January 08, 2022, 05:36:PM »
Agree with that.

The answering machine would have come on before Bamber woke.

Yes, that is a valid prosecution point, subject to the other points raised.