Itemised phone bills

[susan]

Jackie  you know if Mat said he saw the documents he did please accept that my dear.

[JackiePreece]

I will prepared to be amazed Susie

[susan]

Jackie  you are going to be amazed at the documents etc that he is ready to produce thought last night but I suppose I am wrong again!!!

[JackiePreece]

I am prepared to give him the benefit of doubt

[susan]

Jackie  have you noticed everytime you post up pops Susan with a reply agreeing with you within 30seconds how strange is that and other people have noticed this not just silly me.

[guest154]

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

How could I have had access to the CCRC submissions that Simon worked on before him? Since he worked on them?

Nonsense.

[susan]

So sorry Mat I must have misunderstood your post at this rate I will be on the naughty step till next week.  I apologise for the error on my part.  Forgiven.

[tonyb]

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.

Undoubtably calls have been able to be traced, intercepted, recorded etc. for many years prior to the murders. However,although I admit I have no first hand knowledge of this, prior to digital, unless the line in question was specificly targeted for interception there will be no way of tracing any calls, after the call is received or made. Of course I also stress I am only talking of local calls, not national or international calls...
That's my view,if the phone was bugged by any services at WHF or JBs cottage ( or both ) there will not be the stated itemised bill for the previous months in anyone's possession. There would have to be a " bugged" phone line. So who would be bugging the phone line?.

[NewChilledOutHartley]

If itemised billing was indeed available, would one of the many legal geniuses who have acted on behalf of Jeremy over the last 26 and a bit years, not have used their considerable resources to show this to be the case?

[elphick]

If itemised billing was indeed available, would one of the many legal geniuses who have acted on behalf of Jeremy over the last 26 and a bit years, not have used their considerable resources to show this to be the case?

This is a good point. Hopefully, we as posters on this forum will have the good sense to not spend the next 26 years discussing the same.

[mike tesko]

The same prosecution legal eagles who are reaponsible for editing and retyping witness statements in the absence of witnesses, and who are responsible for withholding masses of evidence under Pii, cannot disprove the suggestion that a call was made from the scene to Jeremy's cottage at the material time, and these very same legal eagles could have esitedments, or retyped one in anybodies name in thier absence to say it could be proven, but something under the control and in possession of the DPP prevents them from doing so - ì wonder what that something could be?

[Bridget]

The same prosecution legal eagles who are reaponsible for editing and retyping witness statements in the absence of witnesses, and who are responsible for withholding masses of evidence under Pii, cannot disprove the suggestion that a call was made from the scene to Jeremy's cottage at the material time, and these very same legal eagles could have esitedments, or retyped one in anybodies name in thier absence to say it could be proven, but something under the control and in possession of the DPP prevents them from doing so - ì wonder what that something could be?

Of course no one can prove something didn't happen - that is silly. JB needs to prove that it did, and proof of itemised billing such as the July 1985 bill would help him greatly.

[NewChilledOutHartley]

This is a good point. Hopefully, we as posters on this forum will have the good sense to not spend the next 26 years discussing the same.

Yes I agree, that's why I've not really involved myself too much in this particular claim, my personal opinion (which I am entitled to have) is that it's a load of utter piffle. 

[tonyb]

The same prosecution legal eagles who are reaponsible for editing and retyping witness statements in the absence of witnesses, and who are responsible for withholding masses of evidence under Pii, cannot disprove the suggestion that a call was made from the scene to Jeremy's cottage at the material time, and these very same legal eagles could have esitedments, or retyped one in anybodies name in thier absence to say it could be proven, but something under the control and in possession of the DPP prevents them from doing so - ì wonder what that something could be?

Not entirely accurate Mike.
You have in your possesion itemised bills for the two months prior to the murders
Its not the DPP preventing the release of those bills that would in turn PROVE the existence of a later itemised bill (that would prove(or disprove) the alledged phone call) and force the DPPs hand into releasing the Itemised bill for the date of the Murders to prove or disprove one way or another.
In my opinion,if you catch my drift...

[mike tesko]

Of course no one can prove something didn't happen - that is silly. JB needs to prove that it did, and proof of itemised billing such as the July 1985 bill would help him greatly.

Jeremy does not have to prove anything, he does not have to prove something happened, or that it did not happen, the onus to prove anything at all which supports any part of the prosecutions case, rests with the prosecution, and they could not prove that such a call was never made...