DCS Ainsley visited Robert Boutflour on 6th September with info about Mugford

[Kaldin]

Dr Pal
Could you explain what you make of the conversation that went on the night of the murders when JB rang jm
when earlier in the day JB had said tonights the nice

Not a strange reaction from a call made around 3 in the middle of the night?

Dr Pal
Could you explain what you make of the conversation that went on the night of the murders when JB rang jm
when earlier in the day JB had said tonights the nice

Not a strange reaction from a call made around 3 in the middle of the night?

Not bothered about the context of the call tbh it's the timing, as proved the call was made before the alleged fathers call that SHEILA HAD A GUN. If he called Mugford before that, it couldn't have been about the sister as he alleges, so why call Mugford and why tell lies to the Police, only leads to one thing and again it was another little ploy to say look, i even called my gf because i was very worried i believe he told her to say he called around 3-30 to make the call tie in with his story and plan. He wouldn't have known though that the other house members would have been woken and clocked the time. This alone without any other hard evidence tells us he's Guilty as why lie about matters if done nothing wrong.

He also couldn't be sure that Julie would answer the phone herself, unless they all had a phone each at the flat with a separate line (unlikely don't you think?).

[Dr Pal]

Dr Pal
Could you explain what you make of the conversation that went on the night of the murders when JB rang jm
when earlier in the day JB had said tonights the nice

Not a strange reaction from a call made around 3 in the middle of the night?

Dr Pal
Could you explain what you make of the conversation that went on the night of the murders when JB rang jm
when earlier in the day JB had said tonights the nice

Not a strange reaction from a call made around 3 in the middle of the night?

Not bothered about the context of the call tbh it's the timing, as proved the call was made before the alleged fathers call that SHEILA HAD A GUN. If he called Mugford before that, it couldn't have been about the sister as he alleges, so why call Mugford and why tell lies to the Police, only leads to one thing and again it was another little ploy to say look, i even called my gf because i was very worried i believe he told her to say he called around 3-30 to make the call tie in with his story and plan. He wouldn't have known though that the other house members would have been woken and clocked the time. This alone without any other hard evidence tells us he's Guilty as why lie about matters if done nothing wrong.

It proves sweet FA actually.

Bamber phoned the police and Mugford in relative rapid succession, the police logged the time at their end (so we can assume +/- 2 mins maybe (IF the police managed to log the right time at all), and the window of time at Mugford's end was clear as mud... that they narrowed down to a 30 minute window - even this was after the police allowed witnesses to talk to each other (nobody's suggesting collusion, but different estimates converge when people are aware of other estimates, I'll not go into the psychology of this, but it's a fairly repeatable phenomenon).

Anyway, essentially it neither proves Bambers innocence or guilt.
EVEN if it could ever be proven that Bamber phoned Mugford before the police, even that would not constitute guilt - it just wouldn't help him.

As for the last number redial... I believe the handset WAS 'away' (deliberately or otherwise) so any examination of it would have proven worthless.
If the phone hadn't really been sent for repair, the police could easily have determined this.

In court it was excepted that the call was between 2pm-3,15pm, so well before his fathers call if true.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Dr Pal
Could you explain what you make of the conversation that went on the night of the murders when JB rang jm
when earlier in the day JB had said tonights the nice

Not a strange reaction from a call made around 3 in the middle of the night?

Dr Pal
Could you explain what you make of the conversation that went on the night of the murders when JB rang jm
when earlier in the day JB had said tonights the nice

Not a strange reaction from a call made around 3 in the middle of the night?

Not bothered about the context of the call tbh it's the timing, as proved the call was made before the alleged fathers call that SHEILA HAD A GUN. If he called Mugford before that, it couldn't have been about the sister as he alleges, so why call Mugford and why tell lies to the Police, only leads to one thing and again it was another little ploy to say look, i even called my gf because i was very worried i believe he told her to say he called around 3-30 to make the call tie in with his story and plan. He wouldn't have known though that the other house members would have been woken and clocked the time. This alone without any other hard evidence tells us he's Guilty as why lie about matters if done nothing wrong.

It proves sweet FA actually.

Bamber phoned the police and Mugford in relative rapid succession, the police logged the time at their end (so we can assume +/- 2 mins maybe (IF the police managed to log the right time at all), and the window of time at Mugford's end was clear as mud... that they narrowed down to a 30 minute window - even this was after the police allowed witnesses to talk to each other (nobody's suggesting collusion, but different estimates converge when people are aware of other estimates, I'll not go into the psychology of this, but it's a fairly repeatable phenomenon).

Anyway, essentially it neither proves Bambers innocence or guilt.
EVEN if it could ever be proven that Bamber phoned Mugford before the police, even that would not constitute guilt - it just wouldn't help him.

As for the last number redial... I believe the handset WAS 'away' (deliberately or otherwise) so any examination of it would have proven worthless.
If the phone hadn't really been sent for repair, the police could easily have determined this.

In court it was excepted that the call was between 2pm-3,15pm, so well before his fathers call if true.

No it wasn't the '2' came from a testimony that someone recalled the 'hour' being 2 as in 2:something. The vast majority of other testimonies ranged from 3 to 3.30 and therefore it was concluded that the 2 was 2:50+ (tending towards 3:00). Those that stated 3:00 to 3:15 ish were asked COULD it have been as late as 3:30 and most conceded yes, barring one who was adamant she specifically recalled the time as (from memory, 3:18*). This particular witness did NOT recall that time when first questioned but later said it came back to mind, and from then on, she was adamant that was the time.

*I can't recall the precise time she stated, but it was in this ballpark.

[Jackiepreece]

Thank god for Kaldin and TBM who always explain things so well and so impartially I am learning all the time !!!

[Hartley]

.............. barring one who was adamant she specifically recalled the time as (from memory, 3:18*). This particular witness did NOT recall that time when first questioned but later said it came back to mind, and from then on, she was adamant that was the time.

*I can't recall the precise time she stated, but it was in this ballpark.

That witness stated it was definitely 3:12am and that she kept her clock running 10 minutes fast (which was confirmed by an unannounced police visit to check) therefore the time would be 3:02am.

[Reader]

This alone without any other hard evidence tells us he's Guilty as why lie about matters if done nothing wrong.

What alone? It wasn't shown he lied to the police, and the time of his call to JM was never accurately established, as the witnesses didn't agree.

[Hartley]

This alone without any other hard evidence tells us he's Guilty as why lie about matters if done nothing wrong.

What alone? It wasn't shown he lied to the police, and the time of his call to JM was never accurately established, as the witnesses didn't agree.

Yes I agree, you have four or five witnesses  all saying slightly different times, you can't rely on one and discount the others.

[Reader]

Also, JM didn't initially say that Jeremy had used the phrase "tonight's the night"; her initial account was consistent with what Jeremy told the police.

[mike tesko]

EP have not been entirely honest about the phone billing from Whf, because I have itemized phone bills from 1984 to July 1985, and bearing this in mind, there must also be similar itemized billing for August / September 1985?

For some reason, the itemized billing for the phone at Whf between August / September 1985, is / has been withheld...

This suggests that EP got confirmation that a call was made from WHF to Jeremy's cottage during the early hours of the morning...

From other information contained in the file in my possession about these matters, I can say that EP were more interested in who could have made that call, not that such a call did not take place...

For example, EP were considering whether or not, the caller was Ralph Bamber, or a hot man hired by Jeremy, or Jeremy himself?

These matters fell to be considered and were looked into, once the nature of the investigation changed from SC/688/85 into SC/786/85...