Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85

[Jane]

Why should my opinions bother you so much ? I don't argue against yours !!

Your opinions per se, don't. What interests me are the lengths to which you're willing to go, and the segways you're willing to adopt, rather than admit to being wrong.

[lookout]

Your opinions per se, don't. What interests me are the lengths to which you're willing to go, and the segways you're willing to adopt, rather than admit to being wrong.

I won't admit to being wrong if what I'm saying is right in the first place will I ? Why should everything I say be wrong in your eyes ? Some of your opinions don't hold water but I don't say anything.

[Jane]

I won't admit to being wrong if what I'm saying is right in the first place will I ? Why should everything I say be wrong in your eyes ? Some of your opinions don't hold water but I don't say anything.

Lookout, having already proclaimed that you are NEVER wrong, I guess you have to fight tooth and nail to perpetuate it, which includes segways and convoluted hoops. I think the reason I believe most of what you say to be wrong, is that whilst there are clearly those who agree with you that Jeremy is innocent, there seems a dearth of those who support you when you're obviously wrong, ie. this latest thing with the phone calls. Perhaps they, like I, see you as arguing the point in preference to admitting you might be wrong. Maybe they, like I, don't run with the belief that everyone connected to the crime has deliberately lied to frame an innocent man they'd never heard of.

[lookout]

Lookout, having already proclaimed that you are NEVER wrong, I guess you have to fight tooth and nail to perpetuate it, which includes segways and convoluted hoops. I think the reason I believe most of what you say to be wrong, is that whilst there are clearly those who agree with you that Jeremy is innocent, there seems a dearth of those who support you when you're obviously wrong, ie. this latest thing with the phone calls. Perhaps they, like I, see you as arguing the point in preference to admitting you might be wrong. Maybe they, like I, don't run with the belief that everyone connected to the crime has deliberately lied to frame an innocent man they'd never heard of.

C'mon,where are EP's admittances or denials re.whether Neville phoned or not ? As I stated,ALL emergency calls are taped and logged. It's my prerogative to argue that Neville phoned them the same as it's yours to say that he didn't. So why can't EP come up with the answers ?

EP have clearly been mixed up with the two " Mr Bamber " calls and logged them as one then carried on not thinking or realising that the result would be as it was. Neville's call log will be dossed somewhere.

Anyone who spells motive as " motiff " doesn't exactly get my vote of confidence anyway. Educated ? You could have fooled me !

[Jane]

C'mon,where are EP's admittances or denials re.whether Neville phoned or not ? As I stated,ALL emergency calls are taped and logged. It's my prerogative to argue that Neville phoned them the same as it's yours to say that he didn't. So why can't EP come up with the answers ?

EP have clearly been mixed up with the two " Mr Bamber " calls and logged them as one then carried on not thinking or realising that the result would be as it was. Neville's call log will be dossed somewhere.

Anyone who spells motive as " motiff " doesn't exactly get my vote of confidence anyway. Educated ? You could have fooled me !

But Nevill wouldn't have gone straight through to a police station if he'd called 999. He'd have gone through to a central call centre whose specific task was dealing with 999 calls and putting them through to the appropriate service. There would be no reason on earth for the call centre to 'lose' a call. A central call system wouldn't have known Nevill from the man in the moon.

[lookout]

But Nevill wouldn't have gone straight through to a police station if he'd called 999. He'd have gone through to a central call centre whose specific task was dealing with 999 calls and putting them through to the appropriate service. There would be no reason on earth for the call centre to 'lose' a call. A central call system wouldn't have known Nevill from the man in the moon.

That's just it,there is no lost call,EP made such a hash of everything that they won't now admit to making a mistake about there being two phone-calls and not one.
It's not about " not knowing Neville from the man in the moon ".They didn't have to know him,all they were interested in was getting to the scene of where the last call came from.

[Jane]

That's just it,there is no lost call,EP made such a hash of everything that they won't now admit to making a mistake about there being two phone-calls and not one.
It's not about " not knowing Neville from the man in the moon ".They didn't have to know him,all they were interested in was getting to the scene of where the last call came from.

[Jane]

That's just it,there is no lost call,EP made such a hash of everything that they won't now admit to making a mistake about there being two phone-calls and not one.
It's not about " not knowing Neville from the man in the moon ".They didn't have to know him,all they were interested in was getting to the scene of where the last call came from.

So how would they persuade central call centre to erase all trace of the call THEY would have put through to the police? It was central calls I was suggesting had no knowledge of Nevill so they'd have had no reason to be intimidated by a magistrate, if that's what you're suggesting.

[lookout]

So how would they persuade central call centre to erase all trace of the call THEY would have put through to the police? It was central calls I was suggesting had no knowledge of Nevill so they'd have had no reason to be intimidated by a magistrate, if that's what you're suggesting.

Why would I have to suggest anything pertaining to Neville's status as a magistrate ? That's bonkers.

[Jane]

Why would I have to suggest anything pertaining to Neville's status as a magistrate ? That's bonkers.

It has previously been suggested that a call to the police, from Nevill, might have clout because of his status as having been on the board of magistrates/Nevill wouldn't call the police because his position as a former magistrate might have meant that he was known to them. No one at the central call centre would have been aware of it.

[lookout]

It has previously been suggested that a call to the police, from Nevill, might have clout because of his status as having been on the board of magistrates/Nevill wouldn't call the police because his position as a former magistrate might have meant that he was known to them. No one at the central call centre would have been aware of it.

Whether or not it was Neville or Sheila who'd left the phone off the hook David Shaw made reference that at 05.40 EP had asked the BT operator to again listen into the open line,to which at that time,it was engaged. So after the phone had been off the hook,the handset had to be replaced in order to make an outside call-------to whom ??
A few minutes later the line was checked again and it was found that the handset was off its cradle again.
The only report that the operator made was hearing the dog/s barking in the background,but no report that someone used that phone at 05.40 as it would have been heard by the operator. 

[lookout]

" Taff " Jones had said that the only reason Neville rang Jeremy was to get him to go to WHF,at Sheila's request------to kill him,but it all went pear-shaped for her because Jeremy had rang the police.
This,not in as many words,was said during a private meeting on the 10th of August 1985.
Sheila was in wait for Jeremy downstairs in the kitchen because after her father's call to him she expected he would drive straight to WHF as he had on the past. If Jeremy hadn't phoned the po;ice that morning,he too would have been shot dead.
This had been " Taff's " private theory on what really occurred,prompting his determination in that Jeremy was innocent.

[Caroline]

Whether or not it was Neville or Sheila who'd left the phone off the hook David Shaw made reference that at 05.40 EP had asked the BT operator to again listen into the open line,to which at that time,it was engaged. So after the phone had been off the hook,the handset had to be replaced in order to make an outside call-------to whom ??
A few minutes later the line was checked again and it was found that the handset was off its cradle again.
The only report that the operator made was hearing the dog/s barking in the background,but no report that someone used that phone at 05.40 as it would have been heard by the operator.

I can't believe we're still going around in circles about this. Engaged or off the hook or busy ALL give the same tone. Whoever David Shaw is (and I can guess), like you and the CT, couldn't grasp that it doesn't matter what term is used, the tone is the same and the operator can break into the line to listen in. Have someone been talking on the phone, the operator would have heard them - each time it was listened into, there was no conversation going on because it had been OFF THE HOOK all along!

Re: your claims of digital technology ....... John's reply is below.

"I have had a look at the blue forum re your question and to establish context.  I think I'm right in thinking that WHF was not on a digital exchange back in 1985 so automatic number recognition was impossible.  BT could trace a number on an open line if they received a silent call but it wasn't instant.  The only screens were small computer screens used by the operator to log the call etc.   Hope this helps.

John"

[lookout]

I can't believe we're still going around in circles about this. Engaged or off the hook or busy ALL give the same tone. Whoever David Shaw is (and I can guess), like you and the CT, couldn't grasp that it doesn't matter what term is used, the tone is the same and the operator can break into the line to listen in. Have someone been talking on the phone, the operator would have heard them - each time it was listened into, there was no conversation going on because it had been OFF THE HOOK all along!

Re: your claims of digital technology ....... John's reply is below.

"I have had a look at the blue forum re your question and to establish context.  I think I'm right in thinking that WHF was not on a digital exchange back in 1985 so automatic number recognition was impossible.  BT could trace a number on an open line if they received a silent call but it wasn't instant.  The only screens were small computer screens used by the operator to log the call etc.   Hope this helps.

John"

When one is on the opposing side of an argument,isn't it obvious that they're also going to have opposing views whether right or wrong ?  " Never the twain shall meet ".

[Jane]

When one is on the opposing side of an argument,isn't it obvious that they're also going to have opposing views whether right or wrong ?  " Never the twain shall meet ".

Being on opposing sides isn't justification for continually touting out the same thing when it's clearly wrong, simply because one lacks the grace and humility to back down.