No clue QC
Sorry, it would have to be the one answering machine. The reason I am getting confused is because I have been looping together all the logical deductions and it gets convoluted and confusing.
I now realise that he can't have planned the phone calls. It follows that he had just the one answering machine and if he is guilty, that must have been switched on. He has then opportunistically come up with the idea of the call on the hoof, then it goes as Adam says - he rings his own number, presses the hook switch down, leaves the handset off the hook, then takes the ladies push bike back. He then unravels things at the other end by disposing of the answerphone tape or deleting the record on the phone digitally (hoping that there is no way for it to be recovered by forensic examination). He rings Julie, then the police, etc., etc.
I accept all this is possible, but in order for it to be plausible I need a solution to the problem of timings. Remember, he is making three calls:
- one to himself;
- one to Julie;
- one to the police.
How does he manage to keep the timings consistent, bearing in mind he is staging this on the assumption that there could be a traceable record at the telephone exchange of what he is doing?
Specifically, this is what I asked Adam:
Jeremy says he received the call from Nevill at roughly 3.10 a.m.
Susan Battersby claims it was 3.12 a.m. when Julie came into her room after the brief call from Jeremy.
If Jeremy is guilty:
(i). at what time do you say he called the answering machine at Bourtree Cottage from the farmhouse?
and,
(ii). at what time does he call Julie from Bourtree Cottage?
Or do we say that he doesn't care about the timings of calls, he even invents the call from Nevill? If so, what does he need the bike for?
