Telephone issue - Extravaganza...

[mike tesko]

Now, also consider this:-

[lookout]

The telephone exchange system wasn't as it is now as I can remember in the 80's. It was slower then to be routed through,even with a 999 call. To try and get an international call was like talking to a sponge.

[mike tesko]

Now, in the context of Jeremy having received the call from his father, which was cut dead (for whatever reason), Jeremy thus attempts to call his father back at the scene, but gets an engaged tone...

He attempts to call his father back, several times...

Each time he attempts to do this, he is met by an engaged tone...

[mike tesko]

Now, in the context of Jeremy having received the call from his father, which was cut dead (for whatever reason), Jeremy thus attempts to call his father back at the scene, but gets an engaged tone...

He attempts to call his father back, several times...

Each time he attempts to do this, he is met by an engaged tone...

Lets say, for example, that Jeremy tried four times to re-establish contact with dad at the scene, does this mean that those attempts resulted in up to 8 minutes of delay, in accordance with the following:-

[maggie]

The telephone exchange system wasn't as it is now as I can remember in the 80's. It was slower then to be routed through,even with a 999 call. To try and get an international call was like talking to a sponge.

Well it was pre digital lookout so everything was slower but we just accepted it as it was all we knew.  Hard to remember how the whole thing worked tho.

[mike tesko]

The problem I see with this, however, is whether or not, it becomes possible for the phone originally going dead at the point of Ralph making contact with Jeremy at say 3:25am, and the subsequent engaged tone each time Jeremy tried to re-establish contact with dad at the scene, as being part of the same 'force release' period?

If not, then the handset of the telephone at the scene, must have either been replaced upon its cradle, or someone must have depressed the cradle whilst the handset was still off the hook, with the potential for someone at the scene to make a different telephone call before Jeremy attempted to re-establish contact with dad at the scene...

The telephone call to police from the scene, timed at 3:26am, fits the criteria pefectly...

[mike tesko]

What I find to be incredibly significant regarding the content of the 3:26am call to the police from the scene,  is the following:-

[mike tesko]

A great deal has been made by police, and their supporters, to suggest that the 3;26am log contents, are merely a duplication of Jeremy's call in log 3:36am, and that this has arose because of a discrepancy in the time keeping in different departments at police headquarters, but that explanation is nothing but a blatant lie...

It can be shown to be a lie, because in Jeremy's call to police (see log 3:36am), he never makes any mention of his fathers gun collection of shotguns and .410's...

[mike tesko]

Both logs (3:26 and 3:36am) are inextricably linked to one another, but are not a reference to the same call made by Jeremy to police...

The timing of both individual calls, fit perfectly into the grand scheme of things, proving that there were and must have been two calls made to police, not just one...

[mike tesko]

Both logs (3:26 and 3:36am) are inextricably linked to one another, but are not a reference to the same call made by Jeremy to police...

The timing of both individual calls, fit perfectly into the grand scheme of things, proving that there were and must have been two calls made to police, not just one...

First call (3:26am) made by Ralph from the scene to police, second call made by Jeremy from his cottage to police...

[mike tesko]

First call (3:26am) made by Ralph from the scene to police, second call made by Jeremy from his cottage to police...

In addition to the fact that Jeremy never made any mention to police during his 3:36am call to police from his cottage, about his father having a collection of shotguns and .410's, deployment of the occupants of CA07 to the scene at 3:35am, one minute before Jeremy's call to police was made, also fits in perfectly with them being deployed to the scene at that stage, as a result of Ralph's earlier call. Additionally, an operator was requested at a very earlier stage to check the line by police, who reported back that the phone had been left off the hook...

[mike tesko]

Even more significant...

According to the contents of Jeremy's log (3:36am), the occupants of CA07 are not deployed to the scene in connection with his call, but the occupants of CA05, were...

[mike tesko]

Occupants of CA07 must have been deployed to the scene as a result of Ralph Bambers call (3:26am) from the scene to police, not Jeremy's call (3:36am), arriving there at 3:48am...

[mike tesko]

Occupants of CA05 deployed to scene as a result of Jeremy's 3:36am call to police, arriving there at 4:23am:-

[mike tesko]

We now know, that the court may have been significantly misled regarding the deployment of the occupants CA07 to the scene, and the suggestion that en route there, they overtook Jeremy in his own car, who was portrayed as slow timing towards the scene...

Yet, if the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the scene as a result of Ralph Bambers call (3:26am) to police, less significance could have been placed upon Bambers behavior, particularly since the occupants of CA05 (who had been deployed to the scene as a result of Jeremys call at 3:36am) did not arrive at the scene, until 4:23am - it makes a big difference being able to accurately work out which police officers were deployed to the scene, since it now becomes clear that when the occupants of CA07 overtook Jeremy en route to the scene, they were not responding to his call to police (3:36am), but they were responding to Ralph Bambers earlier call (3:26am)...

Under these circumstances, the fact that the occupants of CA07 overtook Jeremy in his car en route to the scene, had less of a significance in trying to portray him in a poor light...