The key(s) to unlocking Jeremy's cell door

[grahameb]

Thanks for the explanation Mike but what you have sent doesn't show any of that at all. For a start, the things you sent are from the March previous to the murders. 3 pages of it appears to be hand written lists of calls (many to the hospital in Northampton), but who wrote those, what are they? None of the information contained in the hand written lists can be found on the two actual printouts that were also provided. The printout from Jeremy's cottage only shows the NZ / Aus calls in detail, and the other printout only shows something on the 29th April relating to somewhere in Berkshire, but it's not even clear that it's a call since there is no phone number shown, no call duration, and no indication of the rate charged. Oh and it doesn't say what year it's from.

Bridget. What it does show quite indisputably that they had the technology to do it. For many have been saying that it could not be done and therefore such logs could not be in existence. Mikes logs prove beyond doubt that being even before the date of the murders that they were able to trace calls and log them.
Not only that, but because of Operation Cool, where the police had Jeremy under surveilance whilst investigating the theft of opium poppies from WHF fields (they had a licence to grow opium) it is inconceivable that they didn't trace and log calls. That in my mind at least is a terrific step forward in recovering those logs.

[mike tesko]

Bridget. What it does show quite indisputably that they had the technology to do it. For many have been saying that it could not be done and therefore such logs could not be in existence. Mikes logs prove beyond doubt that being even before the date of the murders that they were able to trace calls and log them.
Not only that, but because of Operation Cool, where the police had Jeremy under surveilance whilst investigation the theft of opium poppies from WHF fields (they had a licence to grow opium) it is inconceivable that they didn't trace aqnd log calls. That in my mind at least is a teriffic step forward in recovering those logs.

I agree...

[Bridget]

I agree...

I don't. I'll ask again, what are the had written lists and who wrote them?

[curiousessex]

You cannot see what possible use the logs I have made available have in showing which calls were made, and when? Well, there's no hope for you then, because it cannot have been put any clearer. But I will try to explain one last time in the hope that it becomes clearer?

What you have are records in the form of metered call logs obtained from WHf, which show the different types of call made from there at different times of day, on different days during March 1985 (commencing from 19th March 1985). There are / were different times of the day when these metered call logs refer to, when calls that are / were charged differently to the customer. Details of the calls, were / are recorded in sequence, and give duration of each call. Three relevant periods during the day and night, headed, Cheap rate, peak rate and standard rate. What this allows the police to do, is find out how many calls were made from whf during the cheap rate period, between 6pm on Tuesday, 6th August 1985, and 8am, on Wednesday, 7th August 1985? For the record, police found out that there were only three calls made from the scene during this cheap rate period, and the activation of the attack alarm. From information provided which gives details of the duration of these logged calls (metered call log records) it enabled the police to determine that the first of these calls was of a considerably long duration which they found out related to a call made from the scene by June Bamber to her sister Pamela Boutflour. This call was followed by a very short call, then a longer call which corresponded to the one made by Ralph to the police at 3:26am, and the activation of the attack alarm - this sequence of events as recorded in the metered call log from whf for that particular day (7th August 1985), satisfied the police that the information contained in that log related to (a) the call from June to Pamela, (b) the call from whf to Jeremy, (c) the call from Ralph to the police, and (d) the activation of the attack alarm which sent police scurrying to the scene at 3:35am (before Jeremy made his own call from 9 head street to the police a minute later)...

Sequence of events as recorded in the metered call log at whf during the relevant (aforementioned cheap rate period) being:-

(1) - call by June to Pamela (10pm) - Tuesday, 6th August 1985
(2) - call made from whf to Jeremy's cottage - Wednesday, 7th August 1985
(3) - call made by Ralph to police (3:26am) - Wednesday 7th August 1985
(4) - activation of attack alarm from scene received at Witham police station (3:33am) - Wednesday, 7th August 1985...

Police were able to obtain a similar metered call log record relating to the telephone records at Jeremys cottage (9 Head Street, Goldhanger), for the same relevant period, between 6pm on Tuesday, 6th August 1985, and 8am, on Wednesday, 7th August 1985, as follows:-

(1) - call by Jeremy to Julie Mugford - Tuesday, 6th August 1985
(2) - call by Jeremy to Julie Mugford  (about 3:30am) - Wednesday, 7th August 1985
(3) - call made by Jeremy to the police (3:36am) - Wednesday, 7th August 1985...

The details recorded on / in the metered call logs shows the duration of each call made, in the sequence the metered calls were made, information which the police were satisfied related to the calls listed here...

Nothing could be any clearer, or simpler...

Mike

I am afraid the above, as highlighted in red, discredits your telephone log theories when compared to the sworn evidence at the original trial.

The reason I state this is be cause of the following quote from page 194 of the book 'Blood Relations' by Roger Wilkes.

On Page 194 and in relation to Jeremy's original trial it is stated....

'The first member of the surviving family to give evidence, Pamela Boutflour. June Bamber's sister, described how she'd telephoned White House Farm at about 10 p.m. on the murder night.'

As such the status regarding the White Houe Farm 'telephone call' printouts which have been provided to members of the forum are at best unreliable.

In my opinion, based on the evidence of Pamela Boutflour, the White House Farm 'telephone call' printouts are discredited unless it can be proven Pamela Boutflour was not telling the truth to the court which would be perjury in the eyes of the law.

In the alternative given you have the printouts in your possession these are documents which could be used to sustain an allegation of perjury which, if proven, may in itself as a consequence deem Jeremy's conviction unsafe.

[grahameb]

I don't. I'll ask again, what are the had written lists and who wrote them?

What don't you agree with Bridget?

[Bridget]

Bridget. What it does show quite indisputably that they had the technology to do it. For many have been saying that it could not be done and therefore such logs could not be in existence. Mikes logs prove beyond doubt that being even before the date of the murders that they were able to trace calls and log them.
Not only that, but because of Operation Cool, where the police had Jeremy under surveilance whilst investigation the theft of opium poppies from WHF fields (they had a licence to grow opium) it is inconceivable that they didn't trace aqnd log calls. That in my mind at least is a teriffic step forward in recovering those logs.

What I'm saying Grahame, is that the printouts provided show that some information was available, but it doesn't show that the information Mike claims is available without further explanation. For example, look at the printout that does not relate to Goldhanger, the one that shows a single call (?) to Berkshire in April (the post code given is the Princess Margeret hospital in Windsor) - there are calls on that printout to and from other unrelated numbers dated as late as the 2nd of September, so are we supposed to believe that no calls were made from WHF between the 29th April and the 2nd of September? If not, why aren't they on the printout?

[grahameb]

Mike

I am afraid the above, as highlighted in red, discredits your telephone log theories when compared to the sworn evidence at the original trial.

The reason I state this is be cause of the following quote from page 194 of the book 'Blood Relations' by Roger Wilkes.

On Page 194 and in relation to Jeremy's original trial it is stated....

'The first member of the surviving family to give evidence, Pamela Boutflour. June Bamber's sister, described how she'd telephoned White House Farm at about 10 p.m. on the murder night.'

As such the status regarding the White Houe Farm 'telephone call' printouts which have been provided to members of the forum are at best unreliable.

In my opinion, based on the evidence of Pamela Boutflour, the White House Farm 'telephone call' printouts are discredited unless it can be proven Pamela Boutflour was not telling the truth to the court which would be perjury in the eyes of the law.

In the alternative given you have the printouts in your possession these are documents which could be used to sustain an allegation of perjury which, if proven, may in itself as a consequence deem Jeremy's conviction unsafe.

Well in actual fact if we had the logs we would have to prove anything. Because the telephone logs would take precedence over any written testimony being unbiased evidence. In any case she may have got it wrong and June may have phoned her. It is a common mistake.

[grahameb]

What I'm saying Grahame, is that the printouts provided show that some information was available, but it doesn't show that the information Mike claims is available without further explanation. For example, look at the printout that does not relate to Goldhanger, the one that shows a single call (?) to Berkshire in April (the post code given is the Princess Margeret hospital in Windsor) - there are calls on that printout to and from other unrelated numbers dated as late as the 2nd of September, so are we supposed to believe that no calls were made from WHF between the 29th April and the 2nd of September? If not, why aren't they on the printout?

It doesn't make any difference at all it still shows that the technology was available to them.

[Bridget]

It doesn't make any difference at all it still shows that the technology was available to them.

No it doesn't, in fact it shows the opposite - there are no local calls shown on the printouts at all.

[grahameb]

No it doesn't, in fact it shows the opposite - there are no local calls shown on the printouts at all.

There are call box calls. But if you look at it logically. It is a fact that police had Jeremy under surveilance at that very time of the murders. Plus they were monitoring phone lines because of  Operation Cool. A major operation. They must have had calls monitored. Also it does show metered calls even though you may argue that they may not be local calls. Especially as it has been argued that they didn't have the technology then. These logs nevertheless do show definitely that they DID have the technology to do it. Everyone who disagreed with Mike have been arguing consistenlt that they did not have the technology to do it. That is the whole point of my argument and Mike has been proved right in that respect.

[Bridget]

There are call box calls. But if you look at it logically. It is a fact that police had Jeremy under surveilance at that very time of the murders. Plus they were monitoring phone lines because of  Operation Cool. A major operation. They must have had calls monitored. Also it does show metered calls even though you may argue that they may not be local calls. Especially as it has been argued that they didn't have the technology then. These logs nevertheless do show definitely that they DID have the technology to do it. Everyone who disagreed with Mike have been arguing consistenlt that they did not have the technology to do it. That is the whole point of my argument and Mike has been proved right in that respect.

So are you saying that all of the calls shown in the hand written lists and the second printout (the Berkshire call) are to phone boxes? If so, how does that help Mike's argument? It doesn't matter whether they had the technology, it wasn't being used anywhere other than in phone boxes. If the argument is that they must have been using the technology on the WHF and Goldhanger numbers because of the surveillance that is very weak IMO.

[grahameb]

So are you saying that all of the calls shown in the hand written lists and the second printout (the Berkshire call) are to phone boxes? If so, how does that help Mike's argument? It doesn't matter whether they had the technology, it wasn't being used anywhere other than in phone boxes. If the argument is that they must have been using the technology on the WHF and Goldhanger numbers because of the surveillance that is very weak IMO.

It isn't weak at all. These logs demonstrate that they had the technology to do it and that it the argument. We don't have to prove anything else other than that. The argument of the BGB has always been that the technology did not exist then. These logs demonstrate without doubt that they did.
Logic dictates therefore that the police must have obtained logs in this case. If not one should ask why not? Not  state that it doesn't prove anything. Surely even this must cause you who is an intelligent woman to ask other searching questions about these logs? Not just accept blindly that these coppers are telling the truth when they have demostrated such a reluctance to release vital information?

[Bridget]

It isn't weak at all. These logs demonstrate that they had the technology to do it and that it the argument. We don't have to prove anything else other than that. The argument of the BGB has always been that the technology did not exist then. These logs demonstrate without doubt that they did.
Logic dictates therefore that the police must have obtained logs in this case. If not one should ask why not? Not  state that it doesn't prove anything. Surely even this must cause you who is an intelligent woman to ask other searching questions about these logs? Not just accept blindly that these coppers are telling the truth when they have demostrated such a reluctance to release vital information?

The argument was not that the technology did not exist (I think it was accepted all round that business numbers in some areas had the capability of itemised billing) but that it wasn't used at the Maldon exchange at that time because it hadn't yet been upgraded. The fact that they could itemise calls to phone boxes doesn't change that at all - if they weren't recording that amount of detail for residential lines then they can't retrieve it later.

[Jane]

It isn't weak at all. These logs demonstrate that they had the technology to do it and that it the argument. We don't have to prove anything else other than that. The argument of the BGB has always been that the technology did not exist then. These logs demonstrate without doubt that they did.
Logic dictates therefore that the police must have obtained logs in this case. If not one should ask why not? Not  state that it doesn't prove anything. Surely even this must cause you who is an intelligent woman to ask other searching questions about these logs? Not just accept blindly that these coppers are telling the truth when they have demostrated such a reluctance to release vital information?

The prosecution didn't have to prove that Jeremy DID get in through a window, only that it was possible.

[grahameb]

The prosecution didn't have to prove that Jeremy DID get in through a window, only that it was possible.

It is quite possible that I could crawl along our street sewage pipe. Bit it doesn't mean I'd do it. If court cases were built upon what is possible and not what actually happened then heaven help us.....Wait a minute..... It was.