Telecoms in 1985

[Adam]

QC & Rob need a phone record copy of a call from WHF at around 3am. 

Otherwise no one will ever know -

If a call was made.

What time it was made.

I just gave a straight forward scenario of what Bamber would do if he was not sure what BT could trace.

QC then gets in a tiss about times.

[ILB]

The most important question that needs to be answered is why the call couldnt be traced

[guest29835]

I wish I had an answer to that.

Where there a will there is a way. He could have started it as casual conversation, he knew lots of people around London Clubs and I am sure sone of them will be unsavoury character. He could have got an idea.

Mind you I said COULD.

I don't believe it, sorry.  You just need to think about it logically.  He needed to be sure.  That means he needed to speak to somebody with knowledge of analogue telephony engineering.  He needed to conduct this conversation in such a way that the expert does not know who he is and cannot alert the police at a later point - even months down the line.  It's the sort of thing the person asked would remember.

I will accept that it is possible that he could have convinced himself of the point on some level, perhaps through something as trivial as a TV documentary or engineering magazine article or whatever. 

However, there is doubt here.  You admit that you can't produce to me even something on a probable level that would suggest he could have obtained this information from an innocent source.  A man is in prison.  I totally appreciate the gravity and tragedy of the crime, but we can't just go round making assumptions like this.

[Adam]

QC & Rob need a phone record copy of a call from WHF at around 3am. 

Otherwise no one will ever know -

If a call was made.

What time it was made.

Rob's said he's not going to find it.

Over to you QC.

[Adam]

The most important question that needs to be answered is why the call couldnt be traced

The technology did not exist.

[Jane]

I wish I had an answer to that.

Where there a will there is a way. He could have started it as casual conversation, he knew lots of people around London Clubs and I am sure sone of them will be unsavoury character. He could have got an idea.

Mind you I said COULD.

It has been claimed that he used 'Squaddies' from Colchester barracks, who bought marijuana from him, to commit the murders. I can't imagine war hardened soldiers killing small children. I can't imagine them killing anyone for £2000. Nobody has yet suggested how they travelled from Colchester to WHF. Shank's pony? Or maybe the borrowed a tank?

[guest29835]

Rob's said he's not going to find it.

Over to you QC.

You've just answered that question in post #139.

[Adam]

Suspect Bamber planned to call his cottage from the office phone.

This had a last number dialled display. The police may see it.

However changed his mind when Nevill got downstairs.

He left the kitchen/bedroom phone off the hook. Only he knows if he called his answering machine.

[Jane]

I don't believe it, sorry.  You just need to think about it logically.  He needed to be sure.  That means he needed to speak to somebody with knowledge of analogue telephony engineering.  He needed to conduct this conversation in such a way that the expert does not know who he is and cannot alert the police at a later point - even months down the line.  It's the sort of thing the person asked would remember.

I will accept that it is possible that he could have convinced himself of the point on some level, perhaps through something as trivial as a TV documentary or engineering magazine article or whatever. 

However, there is doubt here.  You admit that you can't produce to me even something on a probable level that would suggest he could have obtained this information from an innocent source.  A man is in prison.  I totally appreciate the gravity and tragedy of the crime, but we can't just go round making assumptions like this.

Actually, we can because we can rest assured that nothing which is said here is for more than our own satisfaction/amusement? We can neither add to, nor subtract from, his sentence.

[guest29835]

Actually, we can because we can rest assured that nothing which is said here is for more than our own satisfaction/amusement? We can neither add to, nor subtract from, his sentence.

Well take it as my own rhetorical flourish then.

[Jane]

Well take it as my own rhetorical flourish then.

 

[Adam]

Anyway if Bamber was not sure & wanted to leave evidence he was called at around 3am he just needed to -

Call his AM.

Leave a 10 second message.

Put the WHF phone down.

Take the WHF phone off the hook.

Delete his AM message.

----------

The only undisputed evidence is the WHF phone was off the hook.

[Munksa]

I don't believe it, sorry.

You don't have to believe, I was just giving my opinion like you are.

You just need to think about it logically.  He needed to be sure.  That means he needed to speak to somebody with knowledge of analogue telephony engineering.  He needs to conduct this conversation in such a way that the expert does not know who he is and cannot alert the police at a later point - even months down the line.  it's the sort of thing you would remember.

I did think logically and practically. If you read my comment I havnt mentioned BT people or experts. Criminals will be well aware of such things, gangsters and all, with things like phones with Police tappings and all going on. I said unsavoury characters in night clubs he might  have met.

However, I will accept that it is possible that he could have convinced himself of the point on some level, perhaps through something as trivial as a TV documentary or engineering magazine article or whatever. 

Possibly

However, there is doubt here.  You admit that you can't produce to me even something on a probable level that would suggest he could have obtained this information from an innocent source.  A man is in prison.  I totally appreciate the gravity and tragedy of the crime, but we can't just go round making assumptions like this.

Are you kiddin?! It's my opinion and yes assumptions. My assumption are based upon my understanding I am sharing it.  The amount of assumptions you make is more than anyone I have seen here. You ask question but when  it does not satisfy you,  you are patronising and I find you passive aggressive. Don't pretend.

[Adam]

Anyway if Bamber was not sure & wanted to leave evidence he was called at around 3am he just needed to -

Call his AM.

Leave a 10 second message.

Put the WHF phone down.

Take the WHF phone off the hook.

Delete his AM message.

----------

The only undisputed evidence is the WHF phone was off the hook.

Or he already knew the phone call could not be traced.

Which was correct.

[Munksa]

The most important question that needs to be answered is why the call couldnt be traced

Because they didn't have such facility will be the simplest answer