Telecoms in 1985

[lookout]

There was nothing on his AM as no one rang from WHF.

If Nevill had rang from WHF the AM would have switched on before Bamber woke.

This once again confirms his guilt.

Wrong ! We'd have heard before now if it had been detrimental to JB's cause.

[Adam]

Wrong ! We'd have heard before now if it had been detrimental to JB's cause.

You know answering machines are on 24/7. Meaning Nevill did not phone from WHF.

Bamber saying his AM was not switched on cannot be challenged by another witness. But both guilters & supporters know it would on 24/7.

[lookout]

You know answering machines are on 24/7. Meaning Nevill did not phone from WHF.

Bamber saying his AM was not switched on cannot be challenged by another witness. But both guilters & supporters know it would on 24/7.

On the contrary, it means that Nevill DID ring and that EP said nothing !

[Adam]

On the contrary, it means that Nevill DID ring and that EP said nothing !

You should join the CT.

[lookout]

You should join the CT.

I don't need to.

[Kestrel19]

Do you disagree? In your opinion.

Whether I agree or disagree does not make your statement any more or less of a fact.

I actually do know of some people around that time who only had their answer phone on when they were out of the house, however I certainly wouldn’t pretend to know if these people were in the majority or minority, I personally didn’t have one then so couldn’t comment on what I’d have done at the time. It’s worth considering though that many answerphones cut in after a small number of rings - a bit like all calls now going to voicemail after a couple of rings rather than an extended time period to allow someone to answer, would voicemail be treated differently now if all calls went very quickly to it?

You consistently demand that any view that is in opposition to yours is backed up by sources for each statement and regularly post that any statement not backed up by sources has to be discounted, therefore you need to play by your own rules, Either prove that everyone had their answer phones on 24/7 or stop stating it as a fact.

[Adam]

Whether I agree or disagree does not make your statement any more or less of a fact.

I actually do know of some people around that time who only had their answer phone on when they were out of the house, however I certainly wouldn’t pretend to know if these people were in the majority or minority, I personally didn’t have one then so couldn’t comment on what I’d have done at the time. It’s worth considering though that many answerphones cut in after a small number of rings - a bit like all calls now going to voicemail after a couple of rings rather than an extended time period to allow someone to answer, would voicemail be treated differently now if all calls went very quickly to it?

You consistently demand that any view that is in opposition to yours is backed up by sources for each statement and regularly post that any statement not backed up by sources has to be discounted, therefore you need to play by your own rules, Either prove that everyone had their answer phones on 24/7 or stop stating it as a fact.

I can't prove that millions of people in 1985 kept their AM's on 24/7.

However the 1471 option which really came next was 24/7, whether you liked it or not. The AM on mobiles are 24/7.

You know everyone left their AM's on 24/7 in 1985. You just don't want to say so as it is another thing that confirms Bamber's guilt.

[Adam]

An advantage of an AM was that it was 24/7. People could choose whether to answer or let someone leave a message when at home.

Or messages can be left/received when a person is asleep.

Nevill would have had the option of leaving a message if he had called Bamber. Him not doing so does not prove Bamber's guilt. However Bamber saying he answered the phone does confirm his guilt. 

[Rob_]

An advantage of an AM was that it was 24/7. People could choose whether to answer or let someone leave a message when at home.

Or messages can be left/received when a person is asleep.

Nevill would have had the option of leaving a message if he had called Bamber. Him not doing so does not prove Bamber's guilt. However Bamber saying he answered the phone does confirm his guilt.

Thanks Adam nearly 26000 posts and I now have got a second reason why you are convinced JB is guilty. Keep going please!

[Adam]

Thanks Adam nearly 26000 posts and I now have got a second reason why you are convinced JB is guilty. Keep going please!

Well the COA has dozens of pieces of incriminating evidence. Try reading it.

Thanks Rob.

[Adam]

To be specific the COA has 57 pieces. That I have seen.

David dismisses them all - it's bullshit. If only that was included in the CCRC submission.

Hopefully Rob is a bit more mature.

[David1819]

Thanks Adam nearly 26000 posts and I now have got a second reason why you are convinced JB is guilty. Keep going please!

Nearly 26,000 posts and never persuaded anyone about JB being guilty. Thou CambridgeAlchi recently gave him false hope.

[Adam]

Nearly 26,000 posts and never persuaded anyone about JB being guilty. Thou CambridgeAlchi recently gave him false hope.

What's your view of the COA evidence? 'It's bullshit'.

That will do. Free Jeremy.

[Rob_]

Nearly 26,000 posts and never persuaded anyone about JB being guilty. Thou CambridgeAlchi recently gave him false hope.

Yes true David, Adam posts so much stuff on here, but getting his reasons why he believes JB guilty is proving hard!

[Rob_]

To be specific the COA has 57 pieces. That I have seen.

David dismisses them all - it's bullshit. If only that was included in the CCRC submission.

Hopefully Rob is a bit more mature.

I am interested in your reason's Adam, not someone else's, your top 5 reason's will do.