You have literally quoted the CoA recounting the evidence produced at trial!
IIRC, JB claimed he tried to call his father straight back but got an engaged tone and the prosecution called the expert witness to show that Bamber's account could not be right, he would have still been connected to WHF unless he waited 1-2 minutes.
While not a prosecution point on its own, the intended effect was to show the jury that Bamber's account of his father calling was at best unreliable and at worst, a pack of lies - which was very much a prosecution point.
Yes I did quote expert telephony evidence from the CoA doc. Where does it say this evidence supported the prosecution case? It doesn't. It states the prosecution relied upon the following [with regard to JB's claim of a telephone call from JB.]
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;
d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and
e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.
