Itemised phone bills

[tonyb]

Does what we have here, if you follow me,  amount to TonyB, reading of itemised billing being introduced in 1987 and leaping to the unsustainable conclusion that the PCs for this complex new phone system were purchased, installed, tested, debugged and and the new system of billing trialled all in the same week.  :D

No this is Tonyb understanding that BT wouldn't use a small village where by chance this horrific crime occurred to test the future of there digital exchanges.

[grahameb]

Events in Telecommunications History
1987
Manx Telecom Ltd came into operation as a wholly-owned subsidiary of British Telecom on 1 January, with a 20-year licence to operate the Isle of Man's telecommunications system.

Itemised billing was introduced on a trial basis in the City of London in January for six months. An £87million programme to provide itemised telephone bills for all customers was announced in December.

This is a section off the BT website. It's fairly clear, I think you will agree,prior to jan 1987 no residential lines had itemised billing. So the question is would a buisines? Without the technology of digital exchanges in place I would say No.

Now I looked at that site. Why didn't I see that?

[Chochokeira]

That's not true Keira, they have every means of obtaining PII withheld documents, there is a whole application process associated with such requests. There is no guarentee that an application would be successful however.

Another confusion is the age of the case, nowadays PII withheld evidence is documented and listed, therefore a defence making an application would be aware of what is withheld but would not be aware of the contents of a withheld document.

In this case the use of PII is grossly overused, there is not a handy list of documents being withheld, any reference to a withheld phone bill is in Mikes head (unless he can show us otherwise). The use of the phrase 'PII' in this instance is incorrect, what Mike is actually trying to say is that the phone bill which he belives exist is being criminally kept away from the defence, it has nothing to do with PII which did not exist in it's current form in 1985.

Andrew Hunter MP, during Parliamentary debate on Bamber case Feb 2005

"With the Bamber case, the key issue has been, and remains, the non-disclosure of evidence to the defence. Early in 2004, Bamber's new defence team looked at the evidence again, and exhibit 29 caught their attention in particular. It was a document listing some radio messages from the scene of the crime. The defence wondered whether it might be the first page of a longer document rather than a complete document in itself, so they sought clarification. Essex constabulary was adamant that exhibit 29 was a whole document and had been available to the defence for the trial. Unconvinced, Bamber's defence team took the matter to court in March 2004. It was successful, and the police produced the entire document. Exhibit 29, it transpired, was not a single-page document, and Bamber's solicitors received by fax a 24-page summary of radio communications. They then took the unusual step of writing to both the trial judge and the chief prosecution counsel, inquiring if either had known at the time of the trial of the existence of the lengthier log of radio messages. Both replied that they had not.

On receiving the 24 pages, the defence immediately noticed that the first two pages had not only been re-written on different paper from the rest, but had been edited. A comparison with police witness statements revealed that several key radio messages that were made had been left out. Why? The defence therefore asked for the original document so that it could be sent for electrostatic document analysis testing, but Essex constabulary refused. The request has been repeated many times, and on each occasion the constabulary has refused.

[grahameb]

I posted the following elsewhere TonyB, but you must have missed it.

New Scientist May 1983

"New Telehone Bills detail every call"

Article re BT's intention of introducing itemised phone bills by 1984.

Picture of itemised phoned bill.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z0Z3DxacC9IC&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=New+Scientist,+itemised+phone+bills+may+1983&source=bl&ots=O3Cqf1k_R4&sig=3eQwKzoAvtpQX8-mbkW07g7-hEc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3klTT-jIMYij8gOis_DwBQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


The article states that BT intended to purchase the PCs with the technology for this. If the technology was available in 1984, even if itemised billing was delayed, or not fully introduced by then, there would presumably have been the ability to provide the police with itemised bills.

Yep that looks like my bill. Except mine are about 6 d/sided pages long.

[Chochokeira]

"Is not the point that the CCRC may be evaluating submissions from Mr. Bamber's solicitor and has the power to request evidence, but the defence does not? The defence's submission to the CCRC is the weaker, because it does not have access, or powers to gain access, to the evidence that the police are allegedly denying it. "

Andrew Hunter MP, during Parliamentary debate on Bamber case Feb 2005

[tonyb]

Does what we have here, if you follow me,  amount to TonyB, reading of itemised billing being introduced in 1987 and leaping to the unsustainable conclusion that the PCs for this complex new phone system were purchased, installed, tested, debugged and and the new system of billing trialled all in the same week.  :D

And,as you point out,a system such as this would take some time to be rolled out to the entire population.

[Hartley]

I've lost track how many times you have cut and pasted a quote from Hunter to me.

It has nothing to do with what I posted, I'm not denying that evidence has been withheld, that is not the point I have made.

[grahameb]

Trailed for 6 months in the city of London from Jan 87

Yes seems quite clear to me. Thanks Tony, good search. I couldn't find it to be sure.

[tonyb]

Yes seems quite clear to me. Thanks Tony, good search. I couldn't find it to be sure.

Now I looked at that site. Why didn't I see that?

So what's your thoughts re itemised bills then Grahame?

[Chochokeira]

I've lost track how many times you have cut and pasted a quote from Hunter to me.

It has nothing to do with what I posted, I'm not denying that evidence has been withheld, that is not the point I have made.

I can understand why you would prefer me not to post sections from this debate, Hartley, but these are highly valid in relation to any issue of non disclosure - which is what this issue boils down to.

These quotations have everything to do with what you've posted, since these establish, without a shadow of doubt, that substantial amounts of key evidence and the access of the defence to this has been deliberately and mysteriously witheld and obstructed by EP for many, many years.

[grahameb]

So what's your thoughts re itemised bills then Grahame?

Well judging by what you have found and that it has been well documented, clearly it is doubtful they exist?

[Chochokeira]

"Nearly 16 years after the White House farm murders, the defence first saw the second bundle of photographs. After nearly 19 years, the defence team discovered that there was a full radio log, a telephone log and an incident report, of which it had previously been unaware. It is the understatement of all understatements to say that such non-disclosure is deeply worrying. Even worse, it is still going on.

Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report. All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them."

Andrew Hunter MP, during Parliamentary debate on Bamber case Feb 2005


Apologies, I shouls have attributed this debate, it's on:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=368.0

[Hartley]

I can understand why you would prefer me not to post sections from this debate, Hartley, but these are highly valid in relation to any issue of non disclosure - which is what this issue boils down to.

These quotations have everything to do with what you've posted, since these establish, without a shadow of doubt, that substantial amounts of key evidence and the access of the defence to this has been deliberately and mysteriously witheld and obstructed by EP for many, many years.

I have no problem with anything you post, you have my complete blessing.

I have however, very clearly made the point that I wished to, in my earlier post directly relating to the theory that itemised phone records existed and are being withheld.

You can give your comment on what I posted if you want, but at this time on a pleasant Sunday afternoon, I'm not interested in being taken off onto a topic which I don't feel my input would be viewed constructively.

[Chochokeira]

And,as you point out,a system such as this would take some time to be rolled out to the entire population.

Exactly, but that was not the point I made. My point was that police might access BT's new technological capability.

[Chochokeira]

No this is Tonyb understanding that BT wouldn't use a small village where by chance this horrific crime occurred to test the future of there digital exchanges.

That small village comes under Maldon.