You can't have it both ways, the phone calls timed at 3.36 or 3.26am?

[scipio_usmc]

No that wouldn't be an issue. I can testify that what I am saying is true, because exactly the same thing happened to me in the 70's. If someone at WHF depressed the button for just a couple of seconds it would have the effect of the phone going dead. I fact the length of time the button is depressed is immaterial. But the leaving off of the receiver from the cradle is. For it is this that enables Jeremy to phone back and get the engaged tone. Now if Jeremy had phoned the operator the operator would have been able to tell him whether the phone was off the hook, or if Ralph was on another call. But he didn't. The important part in all this is that because the button was depressed for a couple of seconds making the phone go dead, Jeremy by putting his phone down would cause the engineer to believe that the call was ended by Jeremy and not Ralph.

This is contrary to the court testimony but if true you still have to find a reasonable explanation for why Nevill would call Jeremy.  You ignored the second part of the inquiry.

Either Nevill called with Sheila watching him dial and speak or she was somewhere else as he called.  So either he got away from her somehow and was away long enough for him to:
1) reach the phone
2) dial Jeremy
3) Jeremy to wake up, go downstairs and answer the phone
4) to pass his message to Jeremy

all before she either ordered him to push the button down or pushed the button down herself.

This would take several minutes to happen.  In those several minutes he coudl have gone into the back kitchen, got a gun and loaded it, gotten a knife, or grabbed something else to use as a weapon and then gone to look for Sheila to disarm her.

Nevill had no idea that Jeremy did not have his answering machine turned off so had no idea Jeremy would answer.  He had no idea Jeremy would wake up and answer evne with the machine off.  If he was lucky enough to get Jeremy to answer the entire process would take at least 15 minutes for Jeremy to get there then he would need to find a way in.

Why would Neville decide not to make the effort to disarm her himself immediately but instead to run to a phone to try to get Jeremy to come do it 15-20 minutes later?

Worse yet, why would he not arm himself and go disarm her instead of grabbing the phone and being a nice easy target when she finds him and such call could even tick her off enough to make her shoot onsite? 

It makes no sense to ask Jeremy to come disarm her instead of trying himself but evne less to not grab a gun or other weapon if he was left alone downstairs.  Surely if he had enough time to dial, wait for Jeremy to answer and to even speak his message before she found him then he had time to grab a weapon.

If he didn't get away from her then why would she let him call Jeremy?  Why would she just sit there watching as Nevill dialed, waited for Jeremy to answer, and even waited for him to speak to Jeremy before finally stepping in to end the call?

Neither scenario makes and sense and it would have to be one or the other.

Since it doesn't make sense the scenario put forth by the phone company and prosecution makes more sense and it the more believable account.

[mike tesko]

There is no evidence to show that anyone had been shot by the stage Jeremy received his fathers call - since, the phrase, "Sheila's gone crazy, she has got the gun", could easily have been reference to her mental condition having deteriorated, and besides this police fiund her fingerprints on no less fhan three different firearms at the  scene, for example, the .22 semi automatic rifle, a .22 air rifle, and a 12 bore shotgun. Yet Ralph told Jeremy over the phpne, that Sheila had got the gun, so which gun was Ralph referring to when he spoke about Sheila  having possession of "the gun"...

Which gun?

[lookout]

Mike,,that too has been my question. I'm sure only Jeremy would know if his father had referred a gun,meaning the 12 bore,,as opposed to the .22 meaning a rifle. Or were they all a collection of guns, including rifles too ?

[mike tesko]

Mike,,that too has been my question. I'm sure only Jeremy would know if his father had referred a gun,meaning the 12 bore,,as opposed to the .22 meaning a rifle. Or were they all a collection of guns, including rifles too ?

Hi Lookout,

Your point about a gun as opposed to a rifle is a valid one, particularly what with Sheila's fingetprints being present on three different weapons, indicative of her handling a number of weapon at the scene...

[lookout]

Hi Lookout,

Your point about a gun as opposed to a rifle is a valid one, particularly what with Sheila's fingetprints being present on three different weapons, indicative of her handling a number of weapon at the scene...

This has bothered me for a long time,Mike,,but the question itself is one that only Jeremy would know.
It actually may have been the shotgun that Sheila had when Neville rang Jeremy. The nearest thing to hand.

Something else bothers me too,,and that's where the rifle was in the window. Two different rooms,,well actually,,one room,the other was a landing which led through to a bedroom. Looking at the windows,,one has got a catch and the other is a sash-cord window.

[mike tesko]

Receiver of phone was depressed and temporarily held down. JEREMY has always maintained that his father had called him, but line had gone dead. How he had phoned his father back only to be met by a constant engaged tone...

[lookout]

That was because his father was phoning the police at the time,,and he'd have had to have been quick about it too,with no time to replace the receiver it would seem.

[grahameb]

This is contrary to the court testimony but if true you still have to find a reasonable explanation for why Nevill would call Jeremy.  You ignored the second part of the inquiry.

Either Nevill called with Sheila watching him dial and speak or she was somewhere else as he called.  So either he got away from her somehow and was away long enough for him to:
1) reach the phone
2) dial Jeremy
3) Jeremy to wake up, go downstairs and answer the phone
4) to pass his message to Jeremy

all before she either ordered him to push the button down or pushed the button down herself.

This would take several minutes to happen.  In those several minutes he coudl have gone into the back kitchen, got a gun and loaded it, gotten a knife, or grabbed something else to use as a weapon and then gone to look for Sheila to disarm her.

Nevill had no idea that Jeremy did not have his answering machine turned off so had no idea Jeremy would answer.  He had no idea Jeremy would wake up and answer evne with the machine off.  If he was lucky enough to get Jeremy to answer the entire process would take at least 15 minutes for Jeremy to get there then he would need to find a way in.

Why would Neville decide not to make the effort to disarm her himself immediately but instead to run to a phone to try to get Jeremy to come do it 15-20 minutes later?

Worse yet, why would he not arm himself and go disarm her instead of grabbing the phone and being a nice easy target when she finds him and such call could even tick her off enough to make her shoot onsite? 

It makes no sense to ask Jeremy to come disarm her instead of trying himself but evne less to not grab a gun or other weapon if he was left alone downstairs.  Surely if he had enough time to dial, wait for Jeremy to answer and to even speak his message before she found him then he had time to grab a weapon.

If he didn't get away from her then why would she let him call Jeremy?  Why would she just sit there watching as Nevill dialed, waited for Jeremy to answer, and even waited for him to speak to Jeremy before finally stepping in to end the call?

Neither scenario makes and sense and it would have to be one or the other.

Since it doesn't make sense the scenario put forth by the phone company and prosecution makes more sense and it the more believable account.

It is not my place to find an answer as to why Ralph phoned Jeremy as I would have thought that was obvious. But I have satisfactually answered your quesry7 concerning the telephone and why it appeared to be engaged,
Yes it may go against what was heard in court. That is why I am interested in this case being a miscarriage of justice. That is one of the reasons as to WHY I believe this to be a moj. That is the whole point of this forum. To challenge what went on in court. Just because someone testified in court a certain thing was so it does not necessarily make the court right. Of court you can do one of two things: (1) reject my explanation. Where of course you will hjave to come up with an other explanation to prove that I am wrong, or (2) Accept my explanation is true and your argument to be flawed. Which I suggest it is.

[Caroline]

Bascially - phone wasn't hung up. But finger was pressed on the connector to dis-connect the call. Then finger was lifted.

Explaining how the call was disconnected without the handset being put back on the cradle.

Phew. 

Cheers!! I read an explanation further on and get it now. 

[scipio_usmc]

It is not my place to find an answer as to why Ralph phoned Jeremy as I would have thought that was obvious. But I have satisfactually answered your quesry7 concerning the telephone and why it appeared to be engaged,
Yes it may go against what was heard in court. That is why I am interested in this case being a miscarriage of justice. That is one of the reasons as to WHY I believe this to be a moj. That is the whole point of this forum. To challenge what went on in court. Just because someone testified in court a certain thing was so it does not necessarily make the court right. Of court you can do one of two things: (1) reject my explanation. Where of course you will hjave to come up with an other explanation to prove that I am wrong, or (2) Accept my explanation is true and your argument to be flawed. Which I suggest it is.

It is indeed your place to find an answer because if you don't it means you have no basis at all oto believe what you do.

it is not enough to argue that the telephone agent was wrong and it coudl be possible that Nevill made the call.  You need to establish there is a reaosnable likeihood tha the did make the call.  If you ignore that part of the inquiry just because yo uwant to believe he did that means you have no reaosnable basis for your claim and just want to believ it.

You claim it is a MOJ.  The court DOES care about this inquiry and the defense neede dot establish that there was a reaosnable likelihood that Nevill called Jeremy.

The inability to explain why Nevill would do so pretty much kills any chance of claiming there was a MOJ.  Without estbalishing a reaosnable likelihood that Nevill called Jeremy stick a fork in him he's done.  He was convicted in large part because the defense had no way to establish why Nevill would call Jeremy instead of disarming her himself or grabbing weapons to use against her.  This in combiantion with all the other evidence against him killed him completely.

If this is not addressed then there is no hope of getting his conviction overturned let alone convincing people to support your view of the crimes.  That is the big mistake advocates seem to make.  Instead of facing all the evidence and trying to dela with all the evidence and arguments against their position they ignore anything that is hard to explain away.  That doesn't make such arguments or evidence go away it leaves the claims unrebutted.  That means the other side wins by default.  All arguments and evidence must be addressed even if it is a crappy rebuttal at least you tried.

[Jan]

Human beings are actually amazing creatures - we are all different in our attitudes and actions - yes you can try and generalise and predict peoples actions - when Wham - someone comes along and does something you are totally nor expecting.

Some people like to keep their private life private and others love to be drama queens and involve all and sunder in their problems.

Then there are human reactions - you imagine in a crisis you will fight to the end - and then as happened in USA in one case you are faced with a 12 year old boy with a gun. All your pre-conceptions go out of the window. Of course the big  burly man will disarm him , no problem.

But no - the big burly man is murdered.

their is nowt so queer as folks as we like to  say. Individual , quirky and un-predicatble.

[Jan]

There is no evidence to show that anyone had been shot by the stage Jeremy received his fathers call - since, the phrase, "Sheila's gone crazy, she has got the gun", could easily have been reference to her mental condition having deteriorated, and besides this police fiund her fingerprints on no less fhan three different firearms at the  scene, for example, the .22 semi automatic rifle, a .22 air rifle, and a 12 bore shotgun. Yet Ralph told Jeremy over the phpne, that Sheila had got the gun, so which gun was Ralph referring to when he spoke about Sheila  having possession of "the gun"...

Which gun?

Quite true - This is the one thing which has never been proved to me .

[mike tesko]

Blood smears which are visible upon Sheila's right forearm and the top part of her right hand /wrist, supports the argument that someone fought or struggle with her prior to her meeting her death upstairs on the bed in the main bedroom...

How did these bloodied smears end up being present upon Sheila's body, and from whom did the blood originate?

[scipio_usmc]

Human beings are actually amazing creatures - we are all different in our attitudes and actions - yes you can try and generalise and predict peoples actions - when Wham - someone comes along and does something you are totally nor expecting.

Some people like to keep their private life private and others love to be drama queens and involve all and sunder in their problems.

Then there are human reactions - you imagine in a crisis you will fight to the end - and then as happened in USA in one case you are faced with a 12 year old boy with a gun. All your pre-conceptions go out of the window. Of course the big  burly man will disarm him , no problem.

But no - the big burly man is murdered.

their is nowt so queer as folks as we like to  say. Individual , quirky and un-predicatble.

Big burly man fought back at some point.

He either fought back when attacked in the kitchen or he chased his killer into the kitchen and tried to disarm the killer.

Prior to this big burly man allegedly called Jeremy to ask him to come disarm Sheila.  Where was Sheila allegedly  while this was happening?

She would have to either be with him or somewhere else.  Those are the only 2 choices.

If she was with him why would he make this call without fear of making this cause her to shoot him?  Moreover, why would she do nothing to stop him until after?

If she wasn't with him why would he not used the opportunity to arm himself?

Why would he ask his chicken sh*t son to come over to disarm her?

If he was in too much fear to try to disarm her without any weapons and even fearful to grab a weapon to use to confront her then surely he could pick someone better to call, especially since his son likely would not even answer.  He normally had an answering machine hooked up and it would pick up after a few rings.  So chances are that Jeremy would not even wake up and hear the phone anyway.  So if he were in so much fear that he needed someone else to help he would call someone who was sure to answer and would be sure to be able to help.  Police or even someone with a gun, which Jeremy did not own.

If no rational explanation can be set forth then no one is going to disregard the testimony and no one is going to even disregard the evidence that suggests the killer entered the master bedroom, shot both parents and Nevill only left the bedroom after that.  There is no evidence to support that he was in the kitchen making a call then went upstairs later and back to the kitchen again after being shot.

Bamber supporters need to come up with something plausible that makes sense to get anyone to believe such occurred.

The inability to do so not only means a majority of the population is going to continue to believe in his guilt but also that he has no chance at all of convincing a court of his innocense.

Of course the bigger elephant in the room is the physical evidence that proves Sheila can't have killed herself.  That helps prove for sure Nevill's alleged phone call was a fairytale.

Saying the blood was planted doesn't establish that it was.  Short of someone admitting they planted it and how there is no hope of ever establishing it.  I was either the most perfect plant job in history or he is guilty.  The blood was sprayed inside not dropped in using a dropper or poured in usuing a vial.  Who would go out of their way to spray it inside when they were the one doing the test so had no need to do so?   

[Adam]

What Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy was a recent thread.

Currently on page 5.