Itemised phone bills

[tonyb]

That's understandable. I obviously don't have proof as all I had was a phone call - however I didn't really do this for the forum it was more for my own benefit - so posters are advised to believe what they wish.

Or make the phone call themselves.

Totally agree Mat.

[tonyb]

No need to remind me, I will be posting it soon, once the CCRC makes its decision (either way)...

Can you clarify mike when you a posting the above?
Or even a little teaser..., post the bill without the itemised account details?

[simong]

Can you clarify mike when you a posting the above?
Or even a little teaser..., post the bill without the itemised account details?

Hey Tony, You and i have been the most vocal about itemised bills since this forum evolved from the old one. I think you have to give a reasonable semblance of faith to the fact that the original defence team would have produced an itemised bill if it was available. They would have certainly looked into it with great detail, an amateur would have. We have both posted up the BT history which also shows that local itemisation didn't exist in 1985. Most people/ members accept that, there was no itemised phone record that showed any local calls made from WHF. It would be nice for Mike to either put this to bed or prove us wrong like he said he would. If not, its your turn to bump the thread in a month's time!!!

[simong]

Bloody hell, I cover the whole of the South East but on Monday i am working at the Old Parsonage, Head Street, Goldhanger. Right opposite where JB lived. What a small world.

[mike tesko]

According to some, it was not possible for the police to obtain itemised records of any telephone records made before the official introduction date...

Think again...

[simong]

Mike, With the greatest respect. If you have the phone bill for WHF that you say you have. It is completely irrelevant what technology the Police had available as all the information needed would be in the phone bill. Just an observation.

[jon]

Julie Mugford was tracked down by EP after she telephoned them from a business address , we know this as Mat told us and he saw the papers at the CCRC !!

[mike tesko]

Mike, With the greatest respect. If you have the phone bill for WHF that you say you have. It is completely irrelevant what technology the Police had available as all the information needed would be in the phone bill. Just an observation.

and vice versa...

Unless you and everybody else subscribes to the view that police were not able to obtain such information prior to itemised phone billing coming on line later on...

[Bridget]

and vice versa...

Unless you and everybody else subscribes to the view that police were not able to obtain such information prior to itemised phone billing coming on line later on...

I subscribe to that view, now prove me wrong by posting the itemised bill from July 1985 you say you have.

[susan]

jon  if Mat told us it will be correct as he had access to all the CCRC documents before Simon MacKay.

[ngb1066]

jon  if Mat told us it will be correct as he had access to all the CCRC documents before Simon MacKay.

Did he really?

[susan]

ngb  I seem to have read he had access to them maybe through a colleague but I don,t believe everything I am told because if this information is correct somebody should be sacked for leaking information of such sensitivity.

[simong]

and vice versa...

Unless you and everybody else subscribes to the view that police were not able to obtain such information prior to itemised phone billing coming on line later on...

I subscribe to the view that both the prosecution and defence would have explored every avenue in establishing whether the phonecall happened or not. To either prove or disprove Jeremy's alibi. So are you saying that the technology was available at the time to the Police but they denied having this technology to both the prosecution and the defence or just the defence team?

[Roch]

I subscribe to the view that both the prosecution and defence would have explored every avenue in establishing whether the phonecall happened or not. To either prove or disprove Jeremy's alibi. So are you saying that the technology was available at the time to the Police but they denied having this technology to both the prosecution and the defence or just the defence team?

This is something I've wondered about.  I've always thought calls would be traceable somehow, if only for the purposes of counter terrorism etc.

[JackiePreece]

Julie Mugford was tracked down by EP after she telephoned them from a business address , we know this as Mat told us and he saw the papers at the CCRC !!

Did he?