Author Topic: Telecoms in 1985  (Read 15636 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44576
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #105 on: January 08, 2022, 07:43:PM »
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.

As said earlier. A straight forward procedure for Bamber. Using the WHF phone & his answering machine.

QC tries to complicate things. That is fine.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13249
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #106 on: January 08, 2022, 07:44:PM »
As said earlier. A straight forward procedure for Bamber. Using the WHF phone & his answering machine.

QC tries to complicate things. That is fine.
leave a ten second message?
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44576
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #107 on: January 08, 2022, 07:46:PM »
leave a ten second message?

Nevill's call to Bamber was 10 seconds.

If the police can trace the lenght of the call, it matches.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44576
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #108 on: January 08, 2022, 07:49:PM »
As it happens, the technology did not exist to check if Bamber's cottage was rang from WHF.

So Bamber can say he received a call from Nevill at any time.

As it happens he says he received it at 3.10am. Which could be the time he phoned his cottage.

He then cycles back & phones the police at 3.26/36am. 
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Rob_

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4869
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #109 on: January 08, 2022, 07:50:PM »
leave a ten second message?

Yes but it's the time the call from WHF is placed is the problem? JB has to get out the window, put everything back as it was on the window sill, cycle in the dark back to BC change his cloths etc. etc.

If he fakes the call this will be at 3.10 there is not time?

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #110 on: January 08, 2022, 07:51:PM »
Why are you focusing on SB? There are about 6 people who give varying times on when Bamber called Julie.

The reason should be obvious, if you know the case.

It is Susan Battersby who was encouraged by the police to give a precise date, and she obliged them.  Interestingly, this was not the time of Jeremy's call, rather it was the time that Julie came into Susan Battersby room after Jeremy's call - though Jeremy's call was brief, hence the significance of the time given.  I wonder why Julie did that?  Perhaps we should pass over that question in silence, as a famous philosopher once said.

As you rightly say, the flatmates were all over the place with times, even suggesting it could have been any time between 2.00 and 3.30 a.m.!  But that doesn't help the prosecution case, does it.  It means Jeremy could be as right as the flatmates about when he rang Julie, and in that regard, you have not a leg to stand on.

Anyway, whichever way you look at it, if you are saying Jeremy has staged the call, then it doesn't add up.

If you want to change your story and say that Jeremy just made up the call from Nevill out of thin air, fine.  In that case, you don't need June's bike, Jeremy can just go back on foot.

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13249
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #111 on: January 08, 2022, 07:51:PM »
Nevill's call to Bamber was 10 seconds.

If the police can trace the length of the call, it matches.
This is my point. And I apologise if I've missed anything. If they could trace a length of a call they could surely prove if said call took place at all? So why didn't the police or prosecution or defence use this?
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #112 on: January 08, 2022, 07:52:PM »
As said earlier. A straight forward procedure for Bamber. Using the WHF phone & his answering machine.

QC tries to complicate things. That is fine.

No, I don't. 

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44576
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #113 on: January 08, 2022, 07:53:PM »
As it happens, the technology did not exist to check if Bamber's cottage was rang from WHF.

So Bamber can say he received a call from Nevill at any time.

As it happens he says he received it at 3.10am. Which could be the time he phoned his cottage.

He then cycles back & phones the police at 3.26/36am.

Actually he probably phoned his cottage around 2.50am. Then phoned Julie around 3.15am.

In all the excitement he lost track of time. Or thought a shorter gap between receiving Nevill's call & phoning the police was better.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #114 on: January 08, 2022, 07:54:PM »
This is my point. And I apologise if I've missed anything. If they could trace a length of a call they could surely prove if said call took place at all? So why didn't the police or prosecution or defence use this?

If Jeremy is guilty, I don't believe he could have planned the call from Nevill or staged one, which leaves only the option of inventing a call from Nevill.

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #115 on: January 08, 2022, 07:55:PM »
Actually he probably phoned his cottage around 2.50am. Then phoned Julie around 3.15am.

In all the excitement he lost track of time. Or thought a shorter gap between receiving Nevill's call & phoning the police was better.

Ah, now you're changing the time.  And your explanation is that he was excited.  Makes a change from saying he was arrogant.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44576
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #116 on: January 08, 2022, 07:56:PM »
This is my point. And I apologise if I've missed anything. If they could trace a length of a call they could surely prove if said call took place at all? So why didn't the police or prosecution or defence use this?

The technology was not there in 1985. If it was it would be all over the internet.

We are saying Bamber phoned his cottage because he wasn't sure what technology BT had.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13249
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #117 on: January 08, 2022, 07:58:PM »
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?
Quite right

Goes back to my earlier point of throwaway remarks, its a lonely place when you are subjected to a police interview. No much briefing you have had from a legal eagle before hand alters that.

Bamber appears evasive in the interviews in my opinion. But he does hold his own to be fair

If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13249
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #118 on: January 08, 2022, 07:59:PM »
The technology was not there in 1985. If it was it would be all over the internet.

We are saying Bamber phoned his cottage because he wasn't sure what technology BT had.
Phone calls could be traced in the 1970s..
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44576
Re: Telecoms in 1985
« Reply #119 on: January 08, 2022, 07:59:PM »
Ah, now you're changing the time.  And your explanation is that he was excited.  Makes a change from saying he was arrogant.

Yes. Put it 20 minutes earlier.

Cycled back.

Called Julie.

Cleaned up.

Rang the police & told them he received a call from Nevill at around 3.10am.

No issue.

----------

Of course we are assuming he did call his cottage from WHF.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2022, 08:00:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.