Update on the telephone engineers testimony

[grahameb]

Ok I have checked up with several telephone engineers who used to work on the telephone systems such as were at Maldon and the surrounding district and this is what they said:
(1) There was no way that a telephone engineer could tell who hung up the phone first. Unless they were (a) on the phone the same time as the two parties. (b) Using specialist surveilance equipment at the time of the phone calls themselves.
So that means that the telephone "expert" was wrong if he testified that Jeremy ended the call.
(2) As I said before concerning the cut-off point for whoever is ringing another person. Is 6 minutes. Thus making it impossible for Jeremy to phone his own phone from WHF and then pick up the phone at his own cottage. Even if he peddled like the clappers.

Conclusion: What do we deduce from the one telephone call from WHF on the morning of the 7th of August 1985? I believe we can confidently claim that this telephone call backs up the fact that Jeremy did indeed receive a call from his father that morning.

I further suggest that this fact should be included in Jeremy's latest application for appeal. So much for the prosecution "experts". If indeed the expert did actually testify as is claimed by scipio?

[lookout]

 Grahame,quite a few things have come to light which exonerates Jeremy.

 I have to walk away from here at times when I read some of the nonsense pointing to his guilt. Sickening.

[wilf]

Ok I have checked up with several telephone engineers who used to work on the telephone systems such as were at Maldon and the surrounding district and this is what they said:
(1) There was no way that a telephone engineer could tell who hung up the phone first. Unless they were (a) on the phone the same time as the two parties. (b) Using specialist surveilance equipment at the time of the phone calls themselves.
So that means that the telephone "expert" was wrong if he testified that Jeremy ended the call.
(2) As I said before concerning the cut-off point for whoever is ringing another person. Is 6 minutes. Thus making it impossible for Jeremy to phone his own phone from WHF and then pick up the phone at his own cottage. Even if he peddled like the clappers.

Conclusion: What do we deduce from the one telephone call from WHF on the morning of the 7th of August 1985? I believe we can confidently claim that this telephone call backs up the fact that Jeremy did indeed receive a call from his father that morning.

I further suggest that this fact should be included in Jeremy's latest application for appeal. So much for the prosecution "experts". If indeed the expert did actually testify as is claimed by scipio?

thankyou   the 6 mins cut off is very telling and I've puzzeled about this quite a bit

[grahameb]

thankyou   the 6 mins cut off is very telling and I've puzzeled about this quite a bit

The 6 minute cut-off time I would still like to get further confirmation on. But initial investigation certainly indicates this. But apparently the time factor depends upon whether the system was strowger, or crossbar, or TXE apparently?

[grahameb]

Grahame,quite a few things have come to light which exonerates Jeremy.

 I have to walk away from here at times when I read some of the nonsense pointing to his guilt. Sickening.

Yes the guilty party have come up with some weird scenarios and quoting them as fact. And they accuse the innocent side of wierd statements. But no one can accuse me of not investigating things. And so far I think I have revealed some interesting facts. I think the guilty side are not averse to using "bluff" as one of their tools?

[lookout]

Yes the guilty party have come up with some weird scenarios and quoting them as fact. And they accuse the innocent side of wierd statements. But no one can accuse me of not investigating things. And so far I think I have revealed some interesting facts. I think the guilty side are not averse to using "bluff" as one of their tools?

Grahame,,I think you've done marvellously with your " investigating ".Go to the top of the class 

[Jane]

Ok I have checked up with several telephone engineers who used to work on the telephone systems such as were at Maldon and the surrounding district and this is what they said:
(1) There was no way that a telephone engineer could tell who hung up the phone first. Unless they were (a) on the phone the same time as the two parties. (b) Using specialist surveilance equipment at the time of the phone calls themselves.
So that means that the telephone "expert" was wrong if he testified that Jeremy ended the call.
(2) As I said before concerning the cut-off point for whoever is ringing another person. Is 6 minutes. Thus making it impossible for Jeremy to phone his own phone from WHF and then pick up the phone at his own cottage. Even if he peddled like the clappers.

Conclusion: What do we deduce from the one telephone call from WHF on the morning of the 7th of August 1985? I believe we can confidently claim that this telephone call backs up the fact that Jeremy did indeed receive a call from his father that morning.

I further suggest that this fact should be included in Jeremy's latest application for appeal. So much for the prosecution "experts". If indeed the expert did actually testify as is claimed by scipio?

Thank you Grahame. Now all we have to do is wait for Scipio to announce that he has greater knowledge than the experts because he has a Phd in telephone engineering in the 1980's, just like he has Phd's in every other damn thing. I really don't know how his head manages to contain a brain of such great magnitude.

[Jan]

have we actually seen the testimony ?

[grahameb]

have we actually seen the testimony ?

No Jan. I have asked scipio a couple of times for it. But as yet he has failed to see my posts?

[nugnug]

i asume he hasnt seen it himself.

[Jan]

No Jan. I have asked scipio a couple of times for it. But as yet he has failed to see my posts?

Oh I am sure he will see it and come back with the document - I hope so because it would solve one of those arguments that has been going round in circles

[grahameb]

Oh I am sure he will see it and come back with the document - I hope so because it would solve one of those arguments that has been going round in circles

It won't make any difference. Because if the expert said what scipio said he said, then he was clearly wrong.
The only way it could be true is that if Jeremy was under surveillance at the time. And that would take it into a whole new dimension. It would also prove one of my other arguments to be right. That Jeremy was in fact under surveillance by special branch under operation Stokenchurch. In which case they would also know what time the call was made.

[Jane]

Grahame, I feel certain that this has been talked about before, but please humour me. WHY was jeremy under surveillance? What was considered to be SO important about him that SB had their eye on him?

[grahameb]

Grahame, I feel certain that this has been talked about before, but please humour me. WHY was jeremy under surveillance? What was considered to be SO important about him that SB had their eye on him?

I can confirm that Jeremy was under surveillance at the time. Special Branch were investigating rumours of the transporting of drugs from WHF to Colchester. If this is true then these men could either confirm that Jeremy is innocent or guilty. As of yet they have said nothing because of the secrecy of the operation at the time.

[Jane]

I can confirm that Jeremy was under surveillance at the time. Special Branch were investigating rumours of the transporting of drugs from WHF to Colchester. If this is true then these men could either confirm that Jeremy is innocent or guilty. As of yet they have said nothing because of the secrecy of the operation at the time.

Grahame, am I missing something here? This all happened in the 1980's. That he MAY have been guilty of drugs crimes doesn't necessarily make him guilty of murder. If this isn't about, if we can't get him on one count, we'll get him on another, what is it about?