Update on the telephone engineers testimony

[Adam]

A more interesting recent discussion was whether Jeremy could have locked the kitchen window from outside.

If not then why was he arrested ?  If he could do it, it highlights the 'opportunity Jeremy had.

After a short investigation I found four sources which showed Jeremy could lock the kitchen window from outside.

[grahameb]

It doesn't make any difference anyway. Because you lot have already made up your minds that he;sw guilty. So he's damned if he did and he's damned if he didn't It's just a waste of time answering you anyway.

[lookout]

 Just how I feel Grahame.

[Adam]

Just as you believe he is innocent.

Investigating whether Jeremy could or could not have answered his own call does not prove guilt of innocence. The prosecution never claimed he answered his own call.

There was not the technology to show whether the call was answered. If there was Jeremy could have just answered it himself, if possible. Or let his answering machine answer it.

[grahameb]

Just as you believe he is innocent.

Investigating whether Jeremy could or could not have answered his own call does not prove guilt of innocence. The prosecution never claimed he answered his own call.

There was not the technology to show whether the call was answered. If there was Jeremy could have just answered it himself, if possible. Or let his answering machine answer it.

So why do you keep on plugging it as a vital part of the case then?

[susan]

Adam why is this all important to you Jeremy was found GUILTY and sentenced to full life tariff perhaps you have a little feeling that he could be innocent and you are testing everything available to you.

[Caroline]

Just as you believe he is innocent.

Investigating whether Jeremy could or could not have answered his own call does not prove guilt of innocence. The prosecution never claimed he answered his own call.

There was not the technology to show whether the call was answered. If there was Jeremy could have just answered it himself, if possible. Or let his answering machine answer it.

I think 'we' told you that. I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that he answered his own call because he risked a neighbour hearing the ring, there was also a cut off point and he risked it not being answered in time. If guilty, it is possible that the answer machine picked up the call simply so it was answered. However, there is no evidence for this either so it's just a theory.

[grahameb]

I think 'we' told you that. I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that he answered his own call because he risked a neighbour hearing the ring, there was also a cut off point and he risked it not being answered in time. If guilty, it is possible that the answer machine picked up the call simply so it was answered. However, there is no evidence for this either so it's just a theory.

Just a note to tack on that Caroline. If he used his answer machine to answer the call the police examined the tape and ruled it out. If he used it it would have been presented in court as evidence.

[Adam]

I think 'we' told you that. I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that he answered his own call because he risked a neighbour hearing the ring, there was also a cut off point and he risked it not being answered in time. If guilty, it is possible that the answer machine picked up the call simply so it was answered. However, there is no evidence for this either so it's just a theory.

Jeremy may have had a quiet phone. Or put the phone in a quiet part of the house, or cupboard.

[Adam]

Just a note to tack on that Caroline. If he used his answer machine to answer the call the police examined the tape and ruled it out. If he used it it would have been presented in court as evidence.

Jeremy would have replaced the tape. Or deleted the message. Before his first holiday of course.

[Jan]

Grahame

In the police statement it says that they checked the line from goldhanger  to make sure it was engaged and not just off the hook when JB called them - and it was engaged

So surely it could not have been to Jeremys number  otherwise he could not have been on the phone to the police?

Or if he had put the phone down in those days could it still have been engaged at the other end?

Also if they checked and it was engaged and not off the hook how did they listen in when the raid team went in?

[scipio_usmc]

Just a note to tack on that Caroline. If he used his answer machine to answer the call the police examined the tape and ruled it out. If he used it it would have been presented in court as evidence.

The police didn't seize his answering machine tape right away. In any event why would he speak?  You make the answering machine pick up and have no need to say anything this would record a call being made though had the cordless phone been used.

This would nto be detectable on a tape no matter what anapysis is done to it.

 

[lookout]

 Not detectable. Just like your proxy-server,eh ?

[guest154]

Not detectable. Just like your proxy-server,eh ?

If Scipio is using a proxy - how would you know, only way you'd know is if the mods have told you, which is worrying.

[lookout]

If Scipio is using a proxy - how would you know, only way you'd know is if the mods have told you, which is worrying.

Nobody has told me anything,Mat..It's a hunch I've got with the poster himself.