The Noble Cause Framing Theory

[No-Bits]

Someone must have made a call from the farm that dreadful night. You don´t have an open line just by taking the reciver off the hook, do you? I am asking, I don´t know??

Hi Alias, the line was opened by a BT engineer.

[Alias]

Hi Alias, the line was opened by a BT engineer.

OK, thanks.

[No-Bits]

This is taken from the official site:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/nevill-s-call-to-police

Later on, the police asked an operator to check the line at White House Farm, and the operator confirmed that at that stage, the handset was off its cradle, a rustling noise was audible, and a dog could be heard barking[21].

The citation for [21] reads as follows:

Noted on what is referred to as Malcolm Bonnet’s Log, also referred to as the ‘Radio Log, or the Essex Police Communications log’, 7 August 1985.

The logs can be viewed in this thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.0.html
Unless my eyesight is failing me, the citation does not match the logs.


On a separate issue to April, the logs do mention TWO dogs going berserk, although neither are singled out to be the owner of the barks heard over the open phone line.

This bit appears to be a concoction. a rustling noise was audible

[Jane]

Someone must have made a call from the farm that dreadful night. You don´t have an open line just by taking the reciver off the hook, do you? I am asking, I don´t know??

Alias, if I left a receiver off the hook now there would be an automatic reminder, but someone trying to call me during that time would, I think, get the "engaged" tone. In 1985 there was no automation and I seem to recall that there were occasions back then when I deliberately left the phone off the hook to prevent an unwanted call...................only to replace it in case I missed a call I wanted.

There are only SO many ways that a receiver could be left off the hook. 1. Deliberately for the above reason OR a momentary distraction during the connected call to which the caller intends to return. 2. Accidentally because something has been heard which demands immediate attention. Either of these would result in an open line, leaving whoever was on the other end hearing nothing but being aware that the other person had gone. This, IMO, wouldn't mean that the line was dead. If the hanger on replaced their own receiver and redialed I imagine they'd have got tones which said either "engaged" or "number unavailable."

[Jane]

.....................................


On a separate issue to April, the logs do mention TWO dogs going berserk, although neither are singled out to be the owner of the barks heard over the open phone line.

Thank-you Harters. If we go as far as asking whether the barks were treble or bass, it would be a bark too far

[grahameb]

Taken from the 2002 appeal:

At 3.35 a.m., Mr Bonnet arranged for a police car to go to White House Farm. A check made by a British Telecom operator of the telephone line to the farm was made at 4.30 a.m. The receiver was off the hook and all the operator could hear was the sound of a dog barking.

I wonder what the dog was barking at?

[Jane]

I wonder what the dog was barking at?

How long have you got, Grahame? :D :D :D

[Alias]

I wonder what the dog was barking at?

Rustling noises outside? Could as well be outside as inside, dogs have good ears.

[Alias]

This bit appears to be a concoction. a rustling noise was audible

Concoction by whom? (Don´t have time to read the links right now.)

[No-Bits]

Concoction by whom? (Don´t have time to read the links right now.)

The author(s) of the article on JB's official site.

[No-Bits]

The author(s) of the article on JB's official site.

To be fair the entire article is a concoction, attempting to use a log of a call between Bonnett and West to dupe folk in to believing that Neville phoned the police, but that's a whole other issue and has been done to death.

[lookout]

 If there was nothing written anywhere,,no links or notes of any kind,,there'd be no discussion going on because we'd all take it that he was guilty,,via the original headline news,,and that would be that.
So blame whoever it was who started with the MOJ.

[No-Bits]

I think that it's getting to the stage now, that even those who believe in his innocence are getting fed up with being lied to.

[lookout]

 We'll see what this next submission brings.
 Dare I say it,,that because I feel that Jeremy is innocent,,and because there was nothing worth mentioning to pin the murders on him,,he'll naturally be clutching at straws. Any little thing that's been overlooked,however relevant it might be to the case,,as this is how it is, being as he continually pleads his innocence. You'd do it yourself.It might seem to be excuses that he keeps making,,but in actual fact,he's doing all he can to seek proof that it wasn't him.

Nobody could keep up any kind of a " charade " like this if there was even a hint of guilt. As I've said before,,unless the man is a raving lunatic and 27 psychologists have missed it,,then I'll eat my hat.

[Jan]

I think that it's getting to the stage now, that even those who believe in his innocence are getting fed up with being lied to.

I think that would be applicable on both guilters and innocent forums tbh. Sometimes it makes all the difference to post a thread as a question rather than a stated fact. And that's the same with scenarios.

I don't see any harm in discussing until the cows come home - because that is all it is really discussion.