Essex police accepted call was made from Whf...

[bob]

What is the "itemised billing" which is being referred to?  Is it the regular itemised billing we all get on our landlines and contract mobile phones?  Or is it something else?  I probably sound very foolish, but I am confused - Mike has said he'll consider posting it?

I ask because itemised billing (what I understand to be itemised billing) wasn't around in 1985, according to BT's website:

http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1984onwards/1987.htm

How do others read the info on this site?

Could the 1987 reference be specific to 'London'?

If it does mean the Uk, does this mean residential customers only? Mike Tesko says the billing was on a business tariff.

Oh dear...

I guess it is possible that the itemised billing existed internally at BT at the time of the murders and this information could have been obtained by the defence/prosecution even though it wasn't, at the time, available to customers. It seems odd that this hasn't been explicitly made clear though - if the claim is that the itemised billing was readiliy available, that does seem bogus given the evidence on the BT site...

[mb1]

It was the only reference I could find besides one the following year which refers to the permanent introduction of itemised billing, again to the City of London.  I might email BT and ask them!

Think that would be a really good idea. Perhaps their press office would be worth a try?

Could you ask them for a copy of the itemised bill as well? I'm willing to pay it just to see it! 

[mb1]

What is the "itemised billing" which is being referred to?  Is it the regular itemised billing we all get on our landlines and contract mobile phones?  Or is it something else?  I probably sound very foolish, but I am confused - Mike has said he'll consider posting it?

I ask because itemised billing (what I understand to be itemised billing) wasn't around in 1985, according to BT's website:

http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1984onwards/1987.htm

How do others read the info on this site?

Could the 1987 reference be specific to 'London'?

If it does mean the Uk, does this mean residential customers only? Mike Tesko says the billing was on a business tariff.

Oh dear...

I guess it is possible that the itemised billing existed internally at BT at the time of the murders and this information could have been obtained by the defence/prosecution even though it wasn't, at the time, available to customers. It seems odd that this hasn't been explicitly made clear though - if the claim is that the itemised billing was readiliy available, that does seem bogus given the evidence on the BT site...

But if 'internal' how would Mike Tesko have itemised bills up to July 85?

Just thought - they are quarterly. Are the terms Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, July-Sept, Oct-Dec?

[Alex]

It was the only reference I could find besides one the following year which refers to the permanent introduction of itemised billing, again to the City of London.  I might email BT and ask them!

Think that would be a really good idea. Perhaps their press office would be worth a try?

Could you ask them for a copy of the itemised bill as well? I'm willing to pay it just to see it! 

If only!  Well, I didn't try their press office but hopefully they will re-direct my query to someone who can answer it.

[bob]

What is the "itemised billing" which is being referred to?  Is it the regular itemised billing we all get on our landlines and contract mobile phones?  Or is it something else?  I probably sound very foolish, but I am confused - Mike has said he'll consider posting it?

I ask because itemised billing (what I understand to be itemised billing) wasn't around in 1985, according to BT's website:

http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1984onwards/1987.htm

How do others read the info on this site?

Could the 1987 reference be specific to 'London'?

If it does mean the Uk, does this mean residential customers only? Mike Tesko says the billing was on a business tariff.

Oh dear...

I guess it is possible that the itemised billing existed internally at BT at the time of the murders and this information could have been obtained by the defence/prosecution even though it wasn't, at the time, available to customers. It seems odd that this hasn't been explicitly made clear though - if the claim is that the itemised billing was readiliy available, that does seem bogus given the evidence on the BT site...

But if 'internal' how would Mike Tesko have itemised bills up to July 85?

Just thought - they are quarterly. Are the terms Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, July-Sept, Oct-Dec?

If he has got them then I presume they would have had to have come from the defence team (assuming BT had such records, and the defence team obtained them, etc.). This is pure speculation of course, so I presume Mike will enlighten us...

[mb1]

It was the only reference I could find besides one the following year which refers to the permanent introduction of itemised billing, again to the City of London.  I might email BT and ask them!

Think that would be a really good idea. Perhaps their press office would be worth a try?

Could you ask them for a copy of the itemised bill as well? I'm willing to pay it just to see it! 

If only!  Well, I didn't try their press office but hopefully they will re-direct my query to someone who can answer it.

Look forward to your update.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

What is the "itemised billing" which is being referred to?  Is it the regular itemised billing we all get on our landlines and contract mobile phones?  Or is it something else?  I probably sound very foolish, but I am confused - Mike has said he'll consider posting it?

I ask because itemised billing (what I understand to be itemised billing) wasn't around in 1985, according to BT's website:

http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1984onwards/1987.htm

How do others read the info on this site?

Could the 1987 reference be specific to 'London'?

If it does mean the Uk, does this mean residential customers only? Mike Tesko says the billing was on a business tariff.

Oh dear...

I guess it is possible that the itemised billing existed internally at BT at the time of the murders and this information could have been obtained by the defence/prosecution even though it wasn't, at the time, available to customers. It seems odd that this hasn't been explicitly made clear though - if the claim is that the itemised billing was readiliy available, that does seem bogus given the evidence on the BT site...

But if 'internal' how would Mike Tesko have itemised bills up to July 85?

Just thought - they are quarterly. Are the terms Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, July-Sept, Oct-Dec?

I do not believe this itemised bill exists.
If it did, it would have been available at the time, and utilised by at least one side, and possibly both.
It seems accepted that no such billing DID exist, and it wasn't challenged by anybody saying "hey, I have such billing on MY bill". And nobody from BT came forward to say "a man is going to prison, and I am the engineer who implemented call logging, so I can get you the logs"

I will eat my hat AND yours if this bill has just come to light. I'm not having a word of it.
This 'bill' is as dead as Buzby

[Kaldin]

What is the "itemised billing" which is being referred to?  Is it the regular itemised billing we all get on our landlines and contract mobile phones?  Or is it something else?  I probably sound very foolish, but I am confused - Mike has said he'll consider posting it?

I ask because itemised billing (what I understand to be itemised billing) wasn't around in 1985, according to BT's website:

http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1984onwards/1987.htm

How do others read the info on this site?

Could the 1987 reference be specific to 'London'?

If it does mean the Uk, does this mean residential customers only? Mike Tesko says the billing was on a business tariff.

Oh dear...

I guess it is possible that the itemised billing existed internally at BT at the time of the murders and this information could have been obtained by the defence/prosecution even though it wasn't, at the time, available to customers. It seems odd that this hasn't been explicitly made clear though - if the claim is that the itemised billing was readiliy available, that does seem bogus given the evidence on the BT site...

But if 'internal' how would Mike Tesko have itemised bills up to July 85?

Just thought - they are quarterly. Are the terms Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, July-Sept, Oct-Dec?

I do not believe this itemised bill exists.
If it did, it would have been available at the time, and utilised by at least one side, and possibly both.
It seems accepted that no such billing DID exist, and it wasn't challenged by anybody saying "hey, I have such billing on MY bill". And nobody from BT came forward to say "a man is going to prison, and I am the engineer who implemented call logging, so I can get you the logs"

I will eat my hat AND yours if this bill has just come to light. I'm not having a word of it.
This 'bill' is as dead as Buzby

I think it's just another story designed to manipulate people into believing that Jeremy is innocent. I think there's a lot of that kind of thing on here. I'm not sure I'll stick around here for much longer.

[Alex]

I've been having similar thoughts.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I'm thinking the same too.
I wanted the evidence to be discussed openly and listen to different opinions where we can all say "if Jeremy did it then .... " and "but if Sheila did it..."

But it seems to be all "PROOF the conspiracy exists" and "FINALLY, the call log that you can't see that proves everything"

It's mostly dramatic headlines, and little dialog.

I can totally sympathise with the appeal judge who said "the more you seem to bring before us, the more we look at it, and the worse it seems to look for Jeremy".

It's relatively easy to get sympathetic for Jeremy and think it's horrific for him to be in prison if he's innocent (which it is), but... we all too easily forget those who were left behind, particularly Colin Caffell, and even Julie Mugford - who can't escape this man who continues down the same lines he always had - "not me guv".

It COULD be a sign of his innocence that he's kept going for so long.
But it could as easily be a sign of the egotistical attention seeking murderer he may well be too.

[Kaldin]

I'm thinking the same too.
I wanted the evidence to be discussed openly and listen to different opinions where we can all say "if Jeremy did it then .... " and "but if Sheila did it..."

But it seems to be all "PROOF the conspiracy exists" and "FINALLY, the call log that you can't see that proves everything"

It's mostly dramatic headlines, and little dialog.

I can totally sympathise with the appeal judge who said "the more you seem to bring before us, the more we look at it, and the worse it seems to look for Jeremy".

It's relatively easy to get sympathetic for Jeremy and think it's horrific for him to be in prison if he's innocent (which it is), but... we all too easily forget those who were left behind, particularly Colin Caffell, and even Julie Mugford - who can't escape this man who continues down the same lines he always had - "not me guv".

It COULD be a sign of his innocence that he's kept going for so long.
But it could as easily be a sign of the egotistical attention seeking murderer he may well be too.

I came to this forum with an open mind, but now I feel as if Mike is trying to pull the wool over my eyes by suddenly introducing sensational new "evidence" that he refuses to post. I don't mind new theories but all this stuff is a bit like the newspapers which had headlines about Nevill's alleged phone call, which turned out to be a red herring. It's manipulation at its finest, but I'm not quite as stupid as Mike seems to think I am - I see what he's doing.

[bob]

I'm thinking the same too.
I wanted the evidence to be discussed openly and listen to different opinions where we can all say "if Jeremy did it then .... " and "but if Sheila did it..."

But it seems to be all "PROOF the conspiracy exists" and "FINALLY, the call log that you can't see that proves everything"

It's mostly dramatic headlines, and little dialog.

I can totally sympathise with the appeal judge who said "the more you seem to bring before us, the more we look at it, and the worse it seems to look for Jeremy".

It's relatively easy to get sympathetic for Jeremy and think it's horrific for him to be in prison if he's innocent (which it is), but... we all too easily forget those who were left behind, particularly Colin Caffell, and even Julie Mugford - who can't escape this man who continues down the same lines he always had - "not me guv".

It COULD be a sign of his innocence that he's kept going for so long.
But it could as easily be a sign of the egotistical attention seeking murderer he may well be too.

I came to this forum with an open mind, but now I feel as if Mike is trying to pull the wool over my eyes by suddenly introducing sensational new "evidence" that he refuses to post. I don't mind new theories but all this stuff is a bit like the newspapers which had headlines about Nevill's alleged phone call, which turned out to be a red herring. It's manipulation at its finest, but I'm not quite as stupid as Mike seems to think I am - I see what he's doing.

Agree with the above two posts, which is why I started the "going down the pan" thread a week or so ago. I got a load of "smites" for that of course.

[mb1]

I'm thinking the same too.
I wanted the evidence to be discussed openly and listen to different opinions where we can all say "if Jeremy did it then .... " and "but if Sheila did it..."

But it seems to be all "PROOF the conspiracy exists" and "FINALLY, the call log that you can't see that proves everything"

It's mostly dramatic headlines, and little dialog.

I can totally sympathise with the appeal judge who said "the more you seem to bring before us, the more we look at it, and the worse it seems to look for Jeremy".

It's relatively easy to get sympathetic for Jeremy and think it's horrific for him to be in prison if he's innocent (which it is), but... we all too easily forget those who were left behind, particularly Colin Caffell, and even Julie Mugford - who can't escape this man who continues down the same lines he always had - "not me guv".

It COULD be a sign of his innocence that he's kept going for so long.
But it could as easily be a sign of the egotistical attention seeking murderer he may well be too.

I came to this forum with an open mind, but now I feel as if Mike is trying to pull the wool over my eyes by suddenly introducing sensational new "evidence" that he refuses to post. I don't mind new theories but all this stuff is a bit like the newspapers which had headlines about Nevill's alleged phone call, which turned out to be a red herring. It's manipulation at its finest, but I'm not quite as stupid as Mike seems to think I am - I see what he's doing.

Agree with the above two posts, which is why I started the "going down the pan" thread a week or so ago. I got a load of "smites" for that of course.

Have missed that thread. Guess it was posted when I left, to return when told some posts were disappearing.

Anyway, here's a +1 for sticking with it.
Have never 'smited' anyone... well, not on here... 

[bob]

Have missed that thread. Guess it was posted when I left, to return when told some posts were disappearing.

Anyway, here's a +1 for sticking with it.
Have never 'smited' anyone... well, not on here...

Thanks mb1 - have a +1 back for being a regular constructive poster

[Hartley]

Agree with the above two posts, which is why I started the "going down the pan" thread a week or so ago. I got a load of "smites" for that of course.

Bah you don't know the meaning of a load of smites.